Talk:Fairfax County Public Schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Schools (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Virginia / Northern Virginia  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Northern Virginia Task Force.


FCPS needs to control its student vandalism. My first article has not been up for a month and already it has been vandalized several times. I checked the IP adress and found that it was registered to Fairfax county Public Schools. I also found that this IP has vandalized hundereds of websites. If the creators of this site can do anything about it, please do. Thank you Very Much, Princetonhistorian

Most school systems will have this problem, and the only thing then can do about it is block students from comin onto the site, which would cause much controversy. You need to ask admins to block IP. KeepOnTruckin 01:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I seem to be aware of this problem. I am a student at FCPS. I am interested in joining Wikipedia, so I started reading the wikipedia information. I noticed a new message box in the vandalism page, and it says FCPS has been banned from editing. This is apparently the third ban for the school. 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned again. 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. These schools seem to be full of people who would like to vandalize this place. That's one of the reasons I got an account. Jesin 13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why WPedia let's just anybody edit and change things that other people put on. What sense does that make when someone bent on mischief can distort, change, or otherwise misrepresent,twist, etc the hard work of others

Removed Content[edit]

I removed the first sentence of the "Demographics" subsection, because it read like an advertisement. Joshua 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed the bit about the grading scale being "the most strenuous in the country"[edit]

Since it's a pretty standard grading scale. I wouldn't be surprised if it was added by a student who was upset about their grades or something like that. --Ssj4android 01:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it IS slightly tougher than most... maybe not the MOST strenuous but not standard... -- 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Grading scale was changed: A)93-100 A-)90-92 B+)87-89 B)83-86 B-)80-82 C+)77-79 C)73-76 C-)70-72 D+)67-69 D)64-66 F)0-63 -- (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fairfax County elementary schools[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifton Elementary School (Clifton, Virginia), a new article Fairfax County elementary schools has been created and all FCPS elementary school articles should be merged there. Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:07Z

School Demographics[edit]

This isn't about this article, but rather all the FCPS high school articles. Each high school article has had a demographics section for almost 2 years, but I'm beginning to wonder about their value in the articles. They're a frequent target for vandals, often several years out of date, and they seem to be just dumped in the article with no relevance to the content before or after. Additionally, these guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Sections of the article don't say anything about demographics. So are the demographics really worth the trouble they cause? Just putting this out there to gauge opinion. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Snow Day call importance[edit]

Theres a box on the snow day call section questioning its importance. I see it as important because the particular call made national headlines for several days and was seen internationally. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the flaws in the presentation, it fails notability, e.g., Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary Tedickey (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The idea that this is important enough to justify encyclopedic coverage is absurd. I agree with Tedickey, and shall remove it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FCPS High Schools on Newsweek's America's Top Public High Schools[edit]

The table lists twenty schools implying that they are high-ranking. But in the first 100 on the source, only eight are listed (and the numbers in the table do not correspond in any obvious manner to the numbers in the source - looks like student population). If the use of the ranking is misleading, it should be removed. Tedickey (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not implying anything, just stating the Newsweek scores. If you look at the source, there are links to 101+, 201+, 301+...1401+, and also tabs to change the year. The easiest way to check the table if you feel it is inaccurate is to search for the school name. Please remove the tag once you realize it is correct. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
And the schools are all of the high schools except TJ, which Newsweek "deemed too elite" for it's list. You should also only see 3 schools in the top 100 of the source (Langley-55, Woodson-74, McLean-99). MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The full list is top-five-percent (1300 schools from a subset of unspecified extent), not that anyone except for people personally involved will look past the first page. Back to the point: the table lists 20 schools, doesn't explain the numbers and lacking that explanation, gives the wrong impression. It's certainly an interpretation of the source. Tedickey (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The 20 schools are all the schools... Would adding the word "Rankings" fix the problem? It seems quite self-explanatory to me. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No - it needs a caption (a few lines of text explaining the numbers) Tedickey (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What else is there to explain besides that those are the rankings that Newsweek gave the schools? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There are many ways to measure "top" schools (placement in colleges, SAT scores, etc). Newsweek's is less conventional, and has its own biases built-in:

Public schools are ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Mathews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2007 divided by the number of graduating seniors. All of the schools on the list have an index of at least 1.000; they are in the top 5 percent of public schools measured this way.

Without explaining the numbers, the reader has to do all of the work Tedickey (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Feel free to add to the article how you see fit. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
ok - I'll think how to summarize Tedickey (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the section "Debate over grading policy"[edit]

While I think it might be acceptable to mention the issue of Fairfax County's grading scale, especially now that FAIRGRADE has been actively pursuing a resolution rather than just complaining about it, I believe that the current section on it is biased in favor of FAIRGRADE and those in favor of changing the policy. Does anybody know where to find cites from the point of view of Fairfax County? Is there anything on their website regarding the issue? FlamingSilmaril (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Try this site:
It's the only one I could find regarding the issue on FCPS's grading policy. FCPS won't release their opinions to the public until January 2009. (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
On 2 January, the Superintendent made a decision on the policy -- he said to change weights of advanced courses and maintain the six-point grading scale. (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On 22 January, the School Board had a unanimous vote to pass FAIRGRADE's demands. They will take effect starting on the first day of the 2009-10 school year. (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. According to the local NBC station's news that night and the FCPS website, the Board "directed the Superintendent to present a recommended grading scale to the School Board". And the newscast followed that quickly with a Board member saying that there was still another vote to come on whether or not to adopt any such plan. The BoardDocs page linked from the FCPS website says it was 10-0 with 2 absent, not quite unanimous (despite one of the local NPR stations' use of the word), but certainly overwhelming. RossPatterson (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I got my sources from the FAIRGRADE website. (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving the 'Debate over grading policy' section to FAIRGRADE article[edit]

I am wondering if we should move this whole section to the new FAIRGRADE article, and create a link from the FCPS article to the 'main' FAIRGRADE article. We would still keep the section on the debate, but only having a main article link in that section. (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the opposite. FAIRGRADE is a group whose only purpose is influencing this particular school system, and not a particularly notable one at that (e.g., hunting for reliable sources that mention it produces almost nothing). Personally, I don't believe the FAIRGRADE article would survive a notability review at Articles for Deletion. RossPatterson (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That's true, I agree. (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Debate over grading policy[edit]

This section is misleading.

It compares the Fairfax County Public School grading policy to that of "another county" - phraseology which is nebulous at best. The reference only compares against Montgomery County, not Loudoun, or Prince William, or Prince George's... get the picture? I would venture to say that an A in most systems is a 4.0 (I have nothing to back up that statement, except experience from the '60s and my kids' schooling from the '80s and '90s). I know many systems use another scale, and obviously, Montgomery County is one of them; it's not a typical system, so I'd say the comparison was extremely poor. --Tim Sabin (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is contrived, of course. However, the comment in this topic is based on the given source, and doesn't appear to misrepresent the (skewed) commentary there. Tedickey (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It does misrepresent. "Another county" can be just about anything - including Any Other County. My feeling: either specify that this is a comparison against Montgomery County, or delete the entire section. --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Then provide a reliable source which relates the comment to the topic (personal experience excluded of course) Tedickey (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, the Grading scale was changed: A)93-100 A'-)90-92 B'+)87-89 B)83-86 B'-)80-82 C'+)77-79 C)73-76 C'-)70-72 D'+)67-69 D)64-66 F)0-63 -- (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This section of the article needs to be either completely redone or just deleted. It contains obvious bias and is not appropriate in a Wikipedia article, specifically the paragraph directly after the bullet list. It is an argument. Technology That Lasts (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No contact rule controversy[edit]

It seems after reading that this section was arbitrarily removed after a consensus was reached. I think it is relevant and needs to stay in because there is a pattern of students having issues. Ranging from suicide to not being allowed to touch people. How can this be not relevant??? Also, and not to accuse, but one person seems to be responsible for not wanting the section to remain.

I have posted on the Accuracy board so we can get an objective point of view. I would ask that you refrain from edits until then. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue was important enough to be covered on CNN, Fox News, etc. It was in the Washington Post and the The Guardian in Britain. It was covered around the world - Australia, India, France. The Students name receives over 4400 hits in google if you do a search for it! The importance of the issue is the fact that the rule infringed on Constitutional rights. Not to mention human rights. To tell a person they can not hug another person or even shake hands is beyond the pale. You don't agree with this? What would the founding fathers have thought of this? That is why the article is in there. The FCPS never issued a statement saying this was NOT a policy. In fact a federal suit was about to be filed but the student changed schools instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You think it is a tiny issue that kids cant give hug or high five each other? The FCPS system refused to take any action on the matter at all. The matter is accurate. CNN covered it and so did the Washington Post. The section has been there since it happened. All of a sudden it is not accurate? I smell bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Before reverting, you should read the Washington Post article and observe that less than half of the paragraph is sourced. Tedickey (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(for the record, I did read the two earlier today, and saw no reason to revert, since the paragraph doesn't appear to be accurate) Tedickey (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read them too, and I disagree, but for a tempest-in-a-teapot like this, I don't care enough to argue the point. The no-contact rule is actually such a tiny issue that I'm not convinced it belongs in WP at all. My revert was based primarily on the unsupported tagging of the section, not on the merits of the section itself. Have a good day! RossPatterson (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
For the record, here are a few of the issues with the section as it stands (which should be apparent to anyone who's read the paragraph and the given source):
  • use of word "strict" (not found in source)
  • second sentence lacks a source (to make it fit the given source, it would have to be substantially reworded, and reduced in scope)
  • third sentence about student's father lacks a source
  • source isn't given to substantiate coverage anywhere except for The Washington Post, noting that the article is in what amounts to a local coverage rather than national news as might be implied by the references to other media.

Tedickey (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow edits added 4 urls - two (CNN and NPR) contain too little information to support any of the statements (other than me-too's for media coverage). So far no attempt's been made to address the other issues Tedickey (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will try to clarify the cites. After my clarification to continue to put "disputed" would be abusive. It is unusual for every single sentence to have to be verified. CNN was not a " me too". CNN confirmed the information. The only one I can not verify is that The father contacted the WP. However, I know for a fact he did.

I will address all your issues. The transcript below ( from the CNN Paula Zahn show and and interview by Kathleen Koch - i.e. It was also covered by Fox morning, Glenn Beck and Erica Hill) addresses the word strict. It was a strict no touching policy as stated on wiki - that is why it made world coverage, which was also addressed with the new sources. The girls at Kilmer were not even allowed to hug other girls. The last sentence below explains how they would not drop the policy. CNN SAW the email. As I said, Henry Beaulieu called the Washington Post, third again, I showed news coverage from around the world.

Cnn reporter from transcript: KOCH: Busted. Hal had violated the Virginia school's' strict' "not touching" policy. Hal's father never knew about the rule until his son called him from the school office. HENRY BEAULIEU, FATHER: I said what do you mean "no touching" and he says: we're not allowed to touch at all at the school. And I said: no handshakes, no high-five? What do you mean no touching? No hugging? I mean, that could be reasonable. He says, it's a no -- we've been told no touching.

Koch (on camera): CNN contacted both the middle school principal and the Fairfax County school system, but neither would comment on the March incident in the cafeteria or the school's "no touching" policy.

.. Koch: Henry Beaulieu has lobbied the school system since March to drop the policy. Their response was this e-mail: "...we do not plan to change the rule at this time..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems you not only have not addressed the points I've made, but are stating that you are personally involved with the incident. That doesn't leave much room for WP:NPOV. Tedickey (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have checked the references given, and there is clearly good documentation for everything stated in the article on this issue. It is not clear to me why Tedickey is so set on denying the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Even the IP-editor admits that some of it is not sourced, and in this discussion has commented that they are personally involved with the topic. Perhaps you can provide a reliable source for the missing pieces. Tedickey (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The last edit is an improvement (still rather biased, of course) Tedickey (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Tedickey is right in that the sources did not confirm every word given in the article, though they confirmed all the essential substance. I have now rewritten the relevant section to accord precisely with what the sources say. Here is the current content of the section, with sentence-by sentence pairing up with quotes from the cited sources. This does not include everything relevant in the sources, but enough to confirm that each statement is sourced.

  • Kilmer Middle School, a school in the FCPS system, has a strict rule/policy of "no physical contact", meaning that contact such as high fives or hugs between friends are not allowed.
    • Time: the Kilmer Middle School has a blanket "No Contact" rule that bans even high-fives.
    • CNN: Hal had violated the Virginia school's strict "not touching" policy
    • Washington Post: All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives? Banned. The rule has been conveyed to students this way: "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!!!"
  • The school system and the principal of the school (Douglas Tyson) stand behind the rule and have refused to rescind the rule.
    • CNN: Henry Beaulieu has lobbied the school system since March to drop the policy. Their response was this e-mail: "...we do not plan to change the rule at this time..."
    • Washington Post: Deborah Hernandez, Kilmer's principal, said the rule makes sense in a school that was built for 850 students but houses 1,100.
  • The issue was brought to light after a 13-year-old student named Hal Beaulieu was reprimanded for putting his arm round his girlfriend during a break, and his parents wrote to the Fairfax County School Board.
    • CNN: HAL BEAULIEU: I went to my girlfriend's table, I briefly put my arm around her for like, I don't know, a few seconds. And then the lunch monitor came around and said: "You come with me."
    • Washington Post: Hal's troubles began one day in March when he got up from his assigned cafeteria table and went to a nearby table where his then-girlfriend was sitting. He admits he broke one rule -- getting up from his assigned table without permission -- and he accepts a reprimand for that.
    • Guardian: Hal's parents, Donna and Henri, agree. They have written to the Fairfax County School Board.
    • CNN: Everything was normal until 13-year-old Hal Beaulieu did something that was strictly forbidden.
  • ...sparking coverage in multiple major media outlets including Time [8], CNN,[9] Fox News, MSNBC, and The Washington Post. [10], The Guardian [11].
    • The cited sources are themselves direct evidence of this.

Since Tedickey's objections are based on the sources not confirming exactly what was stated in the article, presumably now he will be satisfied that his objections have been answered.

It was only on my last re-reading of the above that I realised that I had not quoted anything from a source to confirm that Hal Beaulieu was 13 years old, but I have now added that. I trust that I will not be held to account for any other such trivial details. I assume it was a slip on Tedickey's part when he wrote use of word "strict" (not found in source), as we need to follow the meaning of the sources, not to stick to the same wording. The single source given at the time when that comment was posted says All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives? Banned. The rule has been conveyed to students this way: "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!!!" This is clearly informing us that the rule is a strict one: the word "strict" does not have to be used to do so. Likewise I assume that Tedickey will not in any other respect stick to a pedantic reading in order to claim that the sources are not adequate to support the current version. Assuming, as I say, that this was a slip, and not a deliberately pedantic interpretation with the intention of being obstructive, I think that the present version is clearly well enough sourced.

I have struck through some of my wording above. On reflection it seems that, even though I explicitly said that I was assuming this was not the case, it might look as though I was being sarcastic, which was not my intention.

While I was writing the above Tedickey wrote that my edit to the article was biased. Perhaps he could explain in what way it is biased, so that I can correct my error. I certainly had no intention of being biased. I do note, on the other hand, that Tedickey says my edit was an improvement, which is encouraging. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In context, the editors should keep in mind that students (through numerous court cases) have fewer rights than adults (or even outside the scope of a school). The topic starts off with the presumption that certain instances are automatically rights. I'd split off the specific instances (high-fives, etc), and move it to the middle. Further, the second sentence illustrates a rather common form of editorial bias - giving only the complainers point of view. The sources say in effect that the school board doesn't interfere unless the principal has overstepped their authority. There's no quote from that side of the discussion, though it's part of the sources in more than one place. Did you find a source for this: "his parents wrote to the Fairfax County School Board"? Tedickey (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. You have now moved on to a different question, to whit "does this section give a balanced coverage?" rather than "is the content of this section supported by sources?" Perhaps you would like to correct the imbalance, which I agree exists. I could easily do so, but I am reluctant to spend more time on this now.
  2. Yes, I found a source for "his parents wrote to the Fairfax County School Board", and quoted it in my post above: it is from the Guardian. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
er - if it's biased (selectively presenting portions of the facts), it's inaccurate. Tedickey (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tedickey, you are now arguing a different concept. You are showing your bias by stating "In context, the editors should keep in mind that students (through numerous court cases) have fewer rights than adults (or even outside the scope of a school). " The courts have also said " Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." ". The issue is not what rights they had or did not have. The issue is what the school did - that created the controversy and made worldwidew news. When you tell kids they can't shake hands you have gone to far. FYI, if you have any questions at all feel free to ask. I have all the answers-I know exactly what happened - I was there. (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source; information added to Wikipedia has to be from reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly so. We need to be clear about the difference between whether a fact is significant enough to be worth including, and whether we have enough reliable evidence to justify including it. These are two quite different issues, and I am not sure that is 100% clear about the distinction. The fact that some anonymous person editing Wikipedia says "I was there so I know" is not a reliable or verifiable source of information. (And we are all anonymous, with or without a user account: even if a user page says who the user is in real life, we have no proof that it is true.) A further point is that if you were there then you will be involved, and have a particular point of view in relation to the issue. This means that, even if you are genuinely certain that what you write is true, you are likely, consciously or subconsciously, to introduce a bias towards your point of view. It would be well worth while carefully considering Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline. Tedickey is quite right in pointing out that the coverage is biased, as it presents only the students' point of view ("how shocking that we are denied this freedom") and not the school authorities' point of view ("there are problems which have arisen at times, and we see this as the best way to deal with them"). That second point of view could easily be added; I could do it, but I only stepped in to help resolve or reduce the conflict over sources, in response to a request for help, and really it would be more constructive for those who have been involved in the dispute to see if they can work out an agreed or compromise wording which incorporates both viewpoints. If this issue is not cleared up in a while I am willing to try to help, but I will leave it for a while to allow the others to have a go. Meanwhile, since the dispute seems to have moved on from verifiable sources to bias I am changing the template notice on the section. I hope soon we can have an accepted version, with no need for any notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I may be biased, but I have all the facts because I was the "father" involved. I am tthe one they interviewed and was on the news, etc.

Work it how ever you want. Just keep the pertinent facts in. I don't see how you can add the "other side" when they have refused to comment. You can't add the second point of view for the county because they refused to state one as stated in the CNN transcript. (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is addressed in the first source given, from the Washington Post, e.g., the five paragraphs beginning with "Deborah Hernandez, Kilmer's principal, said "... (the CNN source by the way, appears to have only secondhand information from the schools - no direct quotes). Tedickey (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC) needs to be aware that Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion is the existence of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, not somebody assuring us "I know because I was there". This sometimes seems unreasonable to some users, especially new users. However, there are several reasons for this policy. Firstly, anyone can edit Wikipedia, therefore anybody can falsely claim to be someone they aren't (and there are people who do so: it is not just an academic point). Secondly, we frequently have a conflict between different users each apparently sincerely believing that they know the truth because they "were there", but contradicting one another. Thirdly, by requiring significant coverage in reliable independent published sources we limit coverage to matters which have some reasonable claim to objective notability: an individual editor's opinion that something is worth including is not reliable, and the more closely you are involved the less likely you are to be able to see things from an objective perspective. There may be other reasons, but those three are enough to indicate that the policy does have reasons behind it. "I have all the facts because I was the father involved" is not a reason for taking more notice of what you say, for at least four reasons: (1) a post to Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the fact that you are the father; (2) if we accept that you are the father (which I do) a post to Wikipedia is not a reliable source for what happened; (3) even in a reliable source what the father says is only evidence of the father's opinion, not of objective facts; (4) the very fact that you are an involved party means that anything you say or write is not an independent source. The consequence of all this is that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the fact that you say you are the father is at best totally irrelevant, and at worst a disadvantage, as it suggests a conflict of interest. There is also the question whether you posted this in order to publicise you point of view, which would be an abuse of Wikipedia, contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If this were the case then the section should be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now edited the section in an attempt to address the bias issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment that his parents wrote to the school board appears to only in the CNN quasi-interview. If I'm reading that correctly, it (and the cite for CNN) should be in a separate sentence from the one about coverage in the media, and what prompted it. Tedickey (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"Counselors" is capitalized here; it's that way in the source because it begins a sentence. Is that a title which should be capitalized? Tedickey (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


The incident was covered independently by The Washington Post, CNN, And Fox News. Every one of those organizations interviewed me and my son and contacted the FCPS system, or the Prinicipal - or tired to - if FCPS, or the Principal clammed up and refused to and defend themselves at the time you can't add words for them - see "baker" below. The issue was then picked up around the world. So let's please stop acting like it wasn't covered worldwide.

Second, Mrs. Baker, was only the PTA president, not a spokesperson for the system. Her comments should probably be removed. However, I don't think it matters if you leave them. It is my opinion she sounds foolish saying what she is saying anyway. Erica Hill from CNN agreed. I didn't post her/that transcript. So did Glenn Beck from CNN, , I did not post his transcript either. Oh yeah, The Warren Ballentine Show also, the list goes on...Her comments really are biased though.

I would ask for one change, please add the quote from the WP. In the Washington Post article The principal states "And in a culturally diverse school, officials say, families might have different views of what is appropriate. "

The reason I would like that added is that is the tantamount reason for the rule. The school is about 21% Asian. Many of these Asians are Muslim (from Pakistan, India, Iran, etc)and don't think there should be touching at all. Including hugs, etc. And yes guys, I realize I can't "prove" that's the reason - not by sources online anyway. -- That's fine, it is still in the WP article, so it is sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed PTA quote, she has no reason to be there, she is not a school official. Also, I added the quote about..The principal states "And in a culturally diverse school, officials say, families might have different views of what is appropriate. ".. I no longer have a dispute with the article as it is. Is there anything else we need to address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That last change is ok as well. (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The other copy Joyce_Kilmer_Middle_School#No_contact_rule_controversy probably needs work Tedickey (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. It is less nebulous than this one was. It seems to follow directly the WP article. The other one has been there for a long time. It has always been different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It was close enough to the first paragraph of this article that I synced it up to this text. RossPatterson (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks (it was copied verbatim to this topic on December 12, 2007) Tedickey (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC

Unacceptable. I a thinking about it and the article is completely unbalanced. It states that there is a rule against physical contact, then it goes on to present only one side of why the rule is there. It was better before when it just stated that the rule existed. All this hyperbole is excessive. WIKI is not a place to argue view points, which is now what the article has become - and an unbalanced article at that, which I believe violates the rules. I am changing it to a neutral reading on both pages. (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight. My only interest is in seeing a topic in a free-standing article covered similarly to the same topic in a section of this article about the same school. RossPatterson (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is just not balanced now. There are two paragraphs for one side. The first paragraph does not even argue a position. It just states the fact of a student and the principal. The way it is not is completely biased. What is wrong with only the first paragraph alone? The issue at first was "verifable" then is was changed to bias when the first editor could not get his way. It is now more biased than ever. Where are the arguments or all the quotes from the experts saying the reason to not have the rule? They had experts on CNN but they are not quoted. (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This passage was inserted by an editor who states that he is an involved party (the parent of the student). That editor objects to all and any explanation of why the rule exists. He states that this is in the interest of balance, and not giving undue weight to one point of view. However, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is not that a particular point of view should be suppressed, but rather that all points of view should be represented. If there is an alternative point of view which maintains that the rule is unreasonable then the correct thing to do is to explain that point of view, with references to suitable reliable sources, not to remove the expression of the point of view that the rule is reasonable. To state that there is a rule, but to block any attempt to explain the reason for the rule is unreasonable. Alternatively, the whole section could be deleted: one rule in one school is scarcely notable enough to be given space in an article about the school system. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The FCPS topic lists more than 225 schools; the section does raise WP:UNDUE issues Tedickey (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still unbalanced. Per wiki: Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view.

So there you have it. (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

pov pushing by editor to present only one side. I feel it is now balanced.

looks like the same anonymous editor Tedickey (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing it back and why do you keep harping on anonymity?

Added the doctors opinion from the SAME cited source. You reverted back. Wiki is not a soapbox, nor a place for POV pushing. Presenting both sides is balanced. Why did you object to the side stating why it is good for children to touch??


POV pushing, and soapboxing. When the 'otherside' is presented to balance article a revert is made. (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing neutral about shouting, demanding special consideration, etc. That's more than merely Wikipedia guidelines, as you're probably aware. Tedickey (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is shouting, who has demanded special considerations? That is just how it is perceived by you. You are now making personal attacks. You clearly have some sort of bias on the issue because you don't want any side presented but your own. You unwillingness to accept both sides have given your game away. If you were so sure you were right you would present this for mediation. I would but I don't know how. (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For special considerations (see above, read your own edits). Also see this, for instance (though in context the reference was to newsgroups). By the way, edit, accusing me of bias is a personal attack. You might want to review WP:Civil. For reference, these all appear to be the same person editing: Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ Tedickey (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just for clarification, the IP trace I ran says that Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ are all editing from Gainesville, GA; the first two are apparently at the same location. Special:Contributions/ appears to be somewhere in Virginia, so probably isn't the same person. Judging from the manner of speech, the interest in the neutrality of the same section and the fact that they're editing from the same location, I think we can be pretty sure these IP's are the same person. Also the fact that the user hasn't answered whether or not they're the same person is also suspicious. For the record, it's not a personal attack to assert that a group of IP's, editing in a similar fashion from the same place, are the same person. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The CNN commentators expressed their own opinions (not neutral). I've not found CNN online to be useful, due to their lack of objectivity. The other major-media ones (the Washington Post, etc), are a slight improvement. Tedickey (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There should be some caution when editing here since they appear to be involved directly with the subject, but they're not prohibited from being here. Tedickey, it would've been much better if you had addressed their concerns rather than edit warring. I have noticed that the article only really covers the justification by the school district and doesn't really speak of any other view. This is a legitimate POV concern and needs to be addressed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The history of the topic (from where it was originally copied) shows that it was tuned by "this" editor to slant away from the original issue for which the student was disciplined, into the current form (which only got there by recent intervention by other editors). Apparently the editor also has some personal bias against the PTA president, which may be due to direct confrontations (though - do read the editor's history and check - there are additional factors which aggravate the situation) Tedickey (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) is a parent of a student involved in the incident. They threatened legal action against the Wikimedia foundation because their edits were reverted and they were blocked for a while. Considering is at the same location (according to IP trace tool I used), it's a good bet that this is the same user. Anyone should be able to run the same check and get the results I got. That's the point of WP:CIVIL, if you are directly involved with a subject, you don't edit that subject. Wikipedia editors are supposed to have the project's interests in mind, not their local issues. This is not a personal attack, it seriously necessary for the article to remain neutral.
The problem is, while the section heavily quotes sources on the school's side, I'm not sure a CNN commentator would count as the other POV. Is there another side to this issue that the media has reported on? A source quoting a lawyer or a parent opposing the policy would probably be more appropriate than a commentator playing devil's advocate. I'm not sure what we have here really advocates any POV, it just explains the district's policy and the controversy. WP:NPOV doesn't necessarily mean giving equal space to every position; if we're having trouble finding sources for the other side, we may be giving it undue weight. I want to give a chance to weigh in here, but this is going to have to be a collaboration, not just one editor re-writing the section. It has to reflect what the sources say, not what we want the article to say. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of shouting and I don't know why you keep saying I have a COI. I am going to request page protection. (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Tedicky - I made the section where there is no copyvio, by rewording the article. I also have cited the source. The article now would seem to me to be balanced. If you do not agree with this please let me know what you feel needs to be done to balance both sides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC), I'm confused, you requested page protection when you were the one who kept making changes against consensus. If your edits had been consensus, then it wouldn't have been reverted so many times. The general rule of thumb is: Edit -> Revert -> Discuss. Not: Edit -> revert -> revert -> revert....etc .
Out of curiosity, are you the person I talked to last month whose child directly connected to this controversy? Your edits look very similar. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a doctors opinion on touching and one that is sourced in the existing sources. After I did that it was reverted back repeatedly. I asked for page protection because there was no reason given for the reverts that addressed the actual changes. Do you see a reason that the addition should not be in there?

I am not going to get into the coi, issues, etc. I kind if take it as a personal attack that you even asked me that as I feel my edits have only been neutral. I am more concerned about WP:BITE (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to ask for clarification about who we're talking to. For the time being I'll assume that you are not that person, but I am still bothered by the edit warring. It doesn't matter if people didn't give a good enough reason for reverting your edits. After the first revert you are supposed to take it to the talkpage and work out a compromise. You don't keep reverting until someone gives you a satisfactory reason why they don't like your edit. The correct action is to just stop changing the page until you can be certain you have a consensus for your actions. We can't determine content based on who happens to be around to hit the undo button.
I have no problem with that last version of the paragraph, provided we have consensus here to use that quote. What I would like to know is what is it about the section specifically that you think makes it not neutral? What POV is it slanted toward? To me it just looks like a straightforward explanation of the policy and the controversy as presented by the major media sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up on this talk page. The only explanation were personal attacks. No reason for that sort of behaviour. I do see a pattern to Tedicky's actions. I can't help but stand back and see a bias on his part to the side of the authoirtes, as he is the one who reverted back after the change- as opposed to removing the caps, or re-wording. Also it appears he is highly involved with this area of the US. Anyway, I don't like going down this road. So moving on...

The problem with the previous edits were there was no coverage of the perceived other side of the issue. If you go back and look at the orginal listing it was a NPOV. Then, if you read the talk page the cites/sources became the issue with Tedicky. Another editor corrected the sources then it became an issue of NPOV with Tedicky. Another editor addressed that issue as well. The another editor felt the article was presenting only the side of why the rule was needed- as stated by the FCPS. It was suggested that an editor instead of doping reverts add the 'other side'. It is kind of nebulous what happened next. However, when I read the section I felt that it was going on and on about why the authorities felt the rule was needed by the school. There was nothing about why the rule was not a good idea; Which presumably is was what made it newsworthy. A controversy has to have two sides, right? If not then where is the controversy. I liked the earliest version where it just stated what happened. Tedicky appears to not have been happy with that ( from the talk page review). So I added the doctors opinion.

I just added one paragraph, cited from the same source as the article uses, stating - if you will - the other side. Seems okay to me now. I can see no legitimate reason why anyone would object to using the quote. There are six other quotes from the FCPS officials in that on section. I don't even understand why the quote would be an issue. Please enlighten me? It is some sort of rule or something. Its only a portion, hence no copyvio. If copyvio becomes and issue I will reword it to something like; Dr. Brody also believed that children can can be trusted to understand that touching is appropriate. The doctor also felt touching was not a gateway to other things. (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(watch) (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A quote is fine, but its better to paraphrase and cite your source. Encyclopedia prose doesn't really lend itself to heavy quoting like you would see in a news story. I didn't say anyone was going to object to the addition, you just really want to make sure the other editors here are fine with the addition since this conflict resulted in page protection. You need to be sure it remains somewhat stable after the protection expires.
A couple quick tips about Wikipedia talk pages. When you are replying to someone's comment, you should indent your paragraphs like I have done with the : symbol. It makes it way easier to read and it also clarifies who you are responding to. Also, RfC is really intended for massive changes like a page move on a well-trafficked article or a major change in a policy. RfC means that the changes need the attention of the entire Wikipedia community. If it really is necessary to get more editors here to weigh in on this conversation, you can contact the relevant Wikiprojects (listed at the top of this page). However, this is a simply content dispute, so the decision can probably just be made here without making a big deal about it. I don't really get the feeling that discussions have stalled or anything. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the info. I added a: hope I did it right. (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
And then for each : you add, it indents one more. Anyway, unless other editors feel strongly one way or the other. I propose we just leave it as it is when the page protection wears off. By the way, did the new quote anyone like a parent or a lawyer representing the side of the kids that got in trouble? It seems relevant if reliable sources have that kind of quote. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
After review, I see there are quotes in the CNN transcript. However, they would be unlikely to obtain approval/consensus from Tedicky as they strongly present for the non-FCPS. This is why I put the Dr.'s POV which theoretically should be a NPOV.

"HENRY BEAULIEU: This is unconstitutional. Talk about violating freedom of expression." -CNN

Addressing the cultural differences: "HENRY BEAULIEU: And my response to that was along the lines of, you know, this is an American culture and other societies really should adapt to our culture when they come here." -CNN (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been addressing the author of the section, who claims to be the parent. It would be difficult (probably impossible) to solicit neutral contributions from that person. Tedickey (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, personal attacks against me with you assuming you know who I am, etc. I already addressed that earlier with you. Let's stay on point. Do you have an objection to the addition of the doctors opinion? Already two other editors have said they were okay with it. If you object please state your reason why so we can work on resolving the issue? (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid not - you'll have to prove that (a) you are not Henri Beaulieu (or a close relative, or someone who has a personal interest in him), and (b) that you (singular or plural) are not the person(s) who have been making edits in this thread. Otherwise, you're not responding to my point, but making yet another personal attack. Looking forward to your constructive response Tedickey (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How would I prove something like that? That's ridiculous. A review of your edits appear to show you have some sort of connection with the Northern Virginia area. Do you? Also, your argument that someone involved with an issue can't be objective is without merit. Encyclopedias when they are constructed consist of articles for which experts have been consulted on the matters, thus they have an opinion. The editors just balance the views when they publish. Having said that...

Again, let's stay on point. The proper issue is if the change is acceptable or not. Right now I believe the consensus is three to one for leaving the change in. If you object to the change please state an objective reason. (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you won't respond, there's no consensus on your proposed change Tedickey (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have responded. I just did not asnwer question that are not relevant to the topic. I presume since you won't answer my question why you object, you will answer when the other editors ask. (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Your answers (and lack of response) are relevant. Tedickey (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your questions are not relevant to balancing an article. What is your relation to Northern Virginia? I asked before, you did not answer. You have been editing pages relating to that area for a LONNNGGG time now. I don't think you can have a NPOV based on review of your editing record. You edited for "Herndon Va," years ago, which I believe is near the school? Perhaps your objectivity is clouded and you need to step aside? (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't get any impression that Tedickey is personally involved with the subject; whereas there is some reason to suspect that you are. Nevertheless, I think there are some legitimate POV concerns with this paragraph and when the page protection expires, we should all work together to try and iron that section out. Reverting back and forth isn't going to achieve a consensus. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were supposed to be working on it now so there would be a consensus when the block expires. What are the legitimate POV concerns with paragraph? It seems pretty clear to me. The first paragraph states what happens, the next one states why the doctor thinks the rule is a bad ides, and the next two state why the rule is needed. (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
What gave you the impression that we're not working on the article? As I stated in the conversation above this break, I'm thinking we may need a stronger source than a CNN commentator. The doctor is expressing his opinion that the rule is a bad idea; but he isn't necessarily involved. So as I stated above, I would like to know if there is a stronger expression of opposition. If this is a controversy, there should be someone on the other side with an opposing view, not just someone from CNN. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider this worth keeping. It seems like a clear violation of students' rights, and as there seems not to be school-specific articles, this is the most specific relevant article. MaxHarmony (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing - No contact rule controversy[edit]

I just figured because Tedicky would not address the issues.. Anyway, here is what is in the CNN article.

KOCH: Henry Beaulieu was shocked.

HENRY BEAULIEU: This is unconstitutional. Talk about violating freedom of expression.

KOCH: Kilmer principal, Deborah Hernandez, told the "Washington Post" that some handshakes are gang signs. She also said that in a culturally diverse school, some families have different views of appropriate physical contact.

HENRY BEAULIEU: And my response to that was along the lines of, you know, this is an American culture and other societies really should adapt to our culture when they come here

HAL BEAULIEU: They're saying a handshake to your friend or somebody you just met is bad. It's like denying manners. It's ridiculous. It's just -- I don't even understand why they have it. KOCH: Hal, an honorable student just wants the policy to go away.

Some other points from the Washington Post article.

Officials in Arlington, Loudoun and Prince George's counties said schools in those systems prohibit inappropriate touching and disruptive behavior but don't forbid all contact. ( So not all schools have this )

"How do kids learn what's right and what's wrong?" Henri Beaulieu asked. "They are all smart kids, and they can draw lines. If they cross them, they can get in trouble. But I don't think it would happen too often." Beaulieu has written a letter to the county School Board asking it to review the rule

..Still, they say they encourage hugging at home and have taught him to shake hands when he meets someone. They agree that teenagers need to have clear limits but don't want their son to get the message that physical contact is bad.

So that's what seems to be available. What do you think? Should I try to draft something from that? Thanks (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This section is from the MSNBC article also seems relevant:

But such a strict policy doesn't seem necessary to 13-year-old Hal and his parents, who have written a letter to the county school board asking for a review of the rule. Hugging is encouraged in their home, and their son has been taught to greet someone with a handshake.

Hal said he feels he knows what's appropriate and what's not.

Click for related content Vote: Does the no-contact rule go too far? Has ‘zero tolerance’ in schools overstepped?

"I think you should be able to shake hands, high-five and maybe a quick hug," he said. "Making out goes too far."

His parents said they agree that teenagers need to have clear limits but don't want their son to be taught that physical contact is bad.

"How do kids learn what's right and what's wrong?" Henri Beaulieu asked. "They are all smart kids, and they can draw lines. If they cross them, they can get in trouble. But I don't think it would happen too often."

I broke this into a new section because that other one was getting really long. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it does seem relevant. Perhaps that can be worked in as well (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to a request for help[edit]

I first became aware of this issue as a result of this posting at Editor assistance/Requests on 20 November 2009. Over the following three weeks I made various contributions in an attempt to try to help sort the problem out, and then retired from the scene on 10 December. I have now received two requests on my user talk page to help again. Probably the same editor as before (but now with a different IP address) says "There is still no consensus although the addition is neutral. An admin put an edit block on the page. It seems to me your involvement before was NPOV. Can you please have a look again?" so I have looked again. I don't know whether my comments will be any help, but I will try my best.

The initial request for help suggested that another editor was unreasonably tagging the section as not being reliable, despite sources confirming what it said. What I saw when I first looked into the matter seemed to support this view. However, after a while it became evident to me that the issue was more complicated. The question was not so much whether the information given was accurate, but rather whether it gave a balanced coverage of all points of view. There then followed a period of editing by several editors, including myself, in an attempt to make sure that the coverage was neutral. Since this section was first tagged on 7 November 2009 there have been 73 edits to the article and 99 edits to this talk page. I am not going to work through every one of those 172 edits to make sure that everything I say is exactly accurate, but I believe that the following is in all essentials a fair summary.

The section was first inserted on 12 December 2007 by an editor working anonymously from an IP address. There has been much subsequent anon IP editing, and it is clear that most (though not all) of the anon edits have been from the same editor, although the IP address has changed. (It is not possible to be certain exactly how many of the IP edits came from one editor, because of the changing IP addresses and the reluctance of the editor in question to respond to "are you the same person?", but it is clear that the substantial majority are from one editor.) At some point this editor stated that he was the father of a boy at the school, who was mentioned by name in some reports of the incident, and in some versions of this section of this Wikipedia article. The section remained almost unchanged until November 2009, when the controversy over it blew up. Since then there has been a good deal of argument about what constitutes balanced coverage. Several editors have regarded the version preferred by the IP editor as one-sided, and have attempted to show another side to the controversy. On the other hand the IP editor tends to see edits which oppose his view as unbalanced and biased, and has repeatedly removed material which does so. For example, he has repeatedly removed the sentence A spokesman for Fairfax schools said that many schools have similar "keep your hands to yourself" rules. Meanwhile other editors have, on their side, removed material he has inserted which they see as pushing his point of view. There have also at times been minor side-quarrels over particular comments concerning his status as an anonymous IP editor. For example, on one occasion another editor asked whether he was the same editor as had previously edited from a different IP address, and this was described as "a personal attack". Others have suggested that this editor has a conflict of interest, and this editor has objected to the suggestion, evidently finding it offensive.

Since I have been asked to comment here, I shall first say that I do not doubt that editors on both sides of the argument are acting in good faith: on both sides there seems to me to be a sincere belief that the other side is trying to introduce a biased, unbalanced, coverage. Secondly I shall say that on both sides there has been a considerable amount of edit warring, which is not a constructive approach. Both sides should perhaps take the present enforced break as a time to step back and think carefully about what they have been doing, and what is the most constructive way forward. Thirdly I shall repeat what I said in my last comment above: "one rule in one school is scarcely notable enough to be given space in an article about the school system". I really see the whole thing as having been blown up (by both sides) completely out of proportion to its importance. I still think, as I did right at the start, that the best thing would be to delete the whole section, as its topic is not notable enough for inclusion in the article. Then perhaps all concerned can move on, and spend their time on something more useful.

However, as long as the section is there, it is worth clarifying a few following points. First of all, a person who has a close personal involvement in any issue will be likely to see things from within, rather than being able to stand back and see things from an outsider's perspective. This is what is referred to in Wikipedia as having a "conflict of interest". I myself remember a few years ago making an edit to an article which had a connection with a member of my family, and having my edit reverted with an edit summary saying in no uncertain terms that the information I had put into the article was not notable. I stopped and thought about it, and realised that was right: because I was involved I had seen something as more significant than it would seem to an outsider. I then left the article alone. I had not been deliberately making an unreasonable edit: I had sincerely seen what I was doing as perfectly alright, but my close involvement had given me an unbalanced perspective. That was in the very early part of my career as a Wikipedia editor, and I believe I am now more aware of the danger, and therefore (I hope) less likely to make such a mistake again. Nevertheless I would be very cautious about editing any article in which I had a personal involvement. Having a "conflict of interest" does not necessarily mean that I would make biased edits, but it at least raises the possibility. In the same way the father of a student who was reprimanded under the "no contact" rule, who believes that the rule is unreasonable, does have a conflict of interest, which may or may not lead to biased editing, but it raises the possibility. It is best for anyone in such a position to be aware that there is a risk of bias, however unintentional, and therefore to exercise great caution. To suggest that a person in such a position has a conflict of interest is not an attack, and the best thing is for anyone in such a position to realise and acknowledge the risk. Next, the IP editor has more than once suggested that Tedickey may have a conflict of interest. I do not know anything about Tedickey's background, but certainly a significant proportion of Tedickey's edits are in articles relating to Virginia, suggesting a local presence, and Tedickey has edited this article and talk page frequently in several sections, not only the "no contact rule" section. Once again this does not necessarily imply a bias, but it raises the possibility. It may mean no more than that he/she lives locally and therefore has a natural tendency to be interested in local issues. I think that Kraftlos has made a very good job of trying to mediate. He/she has not, in my view, taken one side or the other, but has tried hard to take a constructive approach towards both sides. Kraftlos has, in fact, made constructive criticisms of both sides. However, their comments have not always been accepted in that spirit. For example, when Kraftlos asked "are you the person I talked to last month...?" the IP editor responded with "I kind if take it as a personal attack that you even asked me...".

Next, when there are different perceptions from different editors as to what is a fair balance between differing points of view, Wikipedia tries to use consensus. I say "tries", because unfortunately it is sometimes difficult to achieve consensus, but that is at least what we aim for. In this case the majority of the disagreement has been between two editors: Tedickey on the one side and the IP editor on the other, which makes it difficult to discern a consensus. However, there have been other editors involved too, and there does seem to be a broad consensus that the IP editor is pushing a particular point of view. Personally I think Tedickey has also been trying to push an opposing point of view, but to a lesser extent.

I have no personal involvement at all. I live thousands of miles away, and did not even know that Fairfax county existed until I responded to the Request for Editor assistance which I mentioned above. Of course this does not guarantee that my assessment is "right" in any sense, but I do believe that it is a completely impartial assessment, from a far enough removed perspective to be completely uninvolved. To me the most striking thing about the whole issue is its triviality. One rule in one school, however reasonable or however unreasonable, does not deserve this much attention in an article about the whole county school system. In fact in my judgement it does not deserve any attention in this article, and not this much attention even if it were only in an article about the school. I think both the IP editor and Tedickey have given the issue far more of their time than they would have done had they been able to stand back and see the matter from an objective perspective. It seems virtually certain that the section was first written because the father of the boy involved thought the rule was unreasonable, and wanted to expose it to more public attention. It seems likely that the editor ( who first tagged the section did so because they saw it as being written to plug one point of view. It also seems likely that Tedickey then defended the tagging because they also saw it in this light. However, I suggest that they may both like to sit back for a minute and ask themselves "is the issue important enough to be worth getting so worked up about it?"

If this section is to remain in the article it will help to have an uninvolved editor cut it down to a brief summary: in its present form it is quite unreasonably long, and undoubtably gives undue weight to this issue. Of course this will help only if both sides agree to accept the result of such editing, and to then leave it. Unfortunately this will be difficult to achieve, as both sides clearly have strong feelings as to what constitutes an unbiased coverage, and there is probably no possible version which both sides would be happy with. Therefore it will work only if both sides are prepared to accept that they may well finish up with a version they are not entirely happy with. My own opinion, as I have already indicated, is that better still would be for both sides to agree to let the section be deleted altogether.

If both sides can agree one one or other of the two courses I have suggested, that should resolve the matter, with both sides having agreed to leave it. If not though, then the only way forward that I can see is for the editors involved to be banned from editing this article. I would much prefer this not to happen, but edit warring on this has been going on now for more than two months, and there really has to be an end to it, preferably by agreement. It may well be that a reluctant agreement to drop the whole section will be easier to obtain than a reluctant agreement to accept a compromise version. Certainly an agreement to drop the section would be better than the unpleasantness of bans and attempts to enforce those bans.

  • I had thought I had left this topic for good. I have come back in response to a request, and have spent a considerable amount of time checking through the history of the dispute, and a considerable amount more time writing this comment, and trying hard to be as fair and constructive as I can. I hope my effort has been helpful, and I apologise if not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Blocking/banning won't work for the ip-editor, since he'll simply return as a different ip (again). Deleting the section will have the same result. (My interest in the matter is not "local", but reflecting WP:Soapbox - which you may note here/there in my edits). Have you any other ideas? Tedickey (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I would prefer at the moment to leave the existing suggestions and see how they fare. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I had typed a very long response but it looks like it did not post. First, I was the one who asked for your imput because I wanted others opinions.

I would agree to a short balanced section. One that presents both sides is 100% okay with me. A short section should not take long for an unbiased editor to draft. If it is balanced, even if it is leaning towards tedickys side I will be okay with it. I just want it to have something in it about why a person may not agree with the issue - the parents, the doctor, whoever. The way it was it did not have anything in it other than the fact that there was an issue and why the FCPS felt they needed it. Either that or no reason/opinion at all.

As per the soapbox comment after a quick review; I believe it was the parent that accused you of using it as a soapbox after JamesWatson mentioned it. I am not getting into who said what, I don't care.

Also, I am not the only one who feels the article is unbalanced. "I have noticed that the article only really covers the justification by the school district and doesn't really speak of any other view. This is a legitimate POV concern and needs to be addressed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)"

As I said, I am willing to work this out. An edit block is useless. Tedicky can just not log in, etc. Then change the edit. How about the suggestion below, the cites will support the statement.

 Editors suggest constructive improvements/changes  If you feel they are needed.

"Kilmer Middle School, a school in the FCPS system, has a strict rule/policy of "no physical contact", meaning that contact such as high fives or hugs between friends are not allowed. "

Playing the devils advocate here: High fives and hugs is included because it defines what no physical contact is.- and is sourced. Strict, is in there because that is what the policy is, as souces/cites indicate.

If as I suspect Tedicky is going to have an issue with "hugs and high fives" then you can cut it down to just the fact of : "Kilmer Middle School, a school in the FCPS system, has a strict rule/policy of "no physical contact" If it is then argued that this only pertains to Kilmer, then I would cite that '..other schools in the system have a similar policy.

As for deleting the section completely, I can not agree to that because if I was a parent moving there that is legitimate information I would want to know about the school system. Why that school and not others? Why do they have that rule? Do others? I would say let me look at these sources, etc. Those are some questions I would ask them. Maybe I would move to a different area and avoid that school, etc. Encyclopedias inform. (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. We have had two responses to my suggestions. Tedickey thinks that the IP editor would not accept a block or ban, but would simply return under a new IP address, and the IP edtior thinks that Tedickey would do the same. So we have a lack of trust on both sides, unfortunately. The option of a third editor producing a cut down version has been accepted by the IP editor, and Tedickey's only objection to it is that the IP editor would not abide by such an agreement. I think we should give this solution a chance. I suggest the following:

  1. If any uninvolved editor is willing to write a brief suggested compromise version, they may do so here, so we can consider it. I suggest that a suitable maximum length is about the length of the first two paragraphs in the present version, which is 149 words: any more than that would be giving grossly excessive weight to a minor point. I would suggest even less.
  2. In case the above suggestion does not produce a usable (or any) solution, anyone who is not willing to do the above, or who does not qualify as an "uninvolved editor", but who is willing to try to help, may write here a few sentences covering essential points which they feel must be included. I will then be willing to look at the contributions, and see if I can combine them into a compromise version. In this case, since we would be likely to have contributions from two or more editors to combine, the maximum length for each contribution should be about half my suggested maximum, i.e. about 75 words.
  3. If neither of the above suggestions has resolved the problem in a reasonable time then we have to accept that the quarrel has gone on long enough, and an end may have to be made to it by more Gordian methods. As far as I am aware the only opposition to removing the section altogether has come from the IP editor. Does anyone else wish to either support or oppose this solution if neither of the above two suggestions resolves the issue?

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Hopefully we will get an NPOV editor to come in and do something. If not I will make my suggestions to you. The third option might as well not exist, because I do not see how if it comes down to it the second can not work. I appreciate your time. (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That would have to be an established editor who is demonstrably independent of either of those having a dispute, e.g., having been editing for several months, logged in and not editing topics that the ip-editor has been modifying Tedickey (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds excellent to me, of course whats good for the goose.. so the editor needs to not be editing any articles that you have edited or are associated with you as well. That would be easily proven with having been logged on, etc. (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be a lot harder. You may not find one of those. Tedickey (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I looked, you have not done that much editing. I am sure someone will come up with someone that meets the criterion, if not we go to step 2. (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that you've approached someone who's done almost as many edits as I have (a step in the right direction) Tedickey (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I was approached by the IP and have now read through the section and these comments. I will try to work up a brief compromise section in the next day or two. I will post what I come up with here for discussion. Meanwhile, if anyone else wants to have a go at it, it's fine with me. LadyofShalott 16:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
She seems from her posts like she would be a good choice to balance an article. I don't know her at all. Thank you for your time and doing this for us. (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is indeed opposition to deleting it. MaxHarmony (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. It looks like JamesBWatson has made some good suggestions. Has a compromise version been written? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Apparently not. By the way, the ip-editor's corresponding contribution to the Joyce Kilmer Middle School topic was removed by User:Interchange88, saying that it was no longer an issue Tedickey (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I let it slip. However, I did not realize that there was an article for the middle school itself. If this belongs anywhere at all, it is in that article rather than this one. In light of your comment, Tedickey, I suggest this just be removed from this article. LadyofShalott 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I already posted here but its gone. So I will restate. You all tend to think it is a non issue. Of course it made worldwide news...nevermind that.

It is a system wide problem. The article states other schools have similar rules. It is an issue that is mounting across the country.

However, assuming you are all American and not Muslim, I say Muslim because that is why they had the rule in the school, to appease them, and you all think it is fine that girls were not allowed to hug girls in Junior High School, that boys were not allowed to shake hands. If when your daughter or grandchild gets suspended because they hugged a friend... If you think that those issues are so unimportant that they should be be erased from history, go ahead. The purpose was achieved through the media. The rule is no longer.. but it was..and will be again if people forget their history.

The three or four of you, hardly make a consensus. You are the majority, but the words of the few outweigh the silence of the many. These issues will appear in the news again and history will repeat itself and you can take solace in the fact that you helped perpetuate these types of "rules".

This failure to accurately represent history is the exact reason students can not cite wiki in research papers. It is why wiki is good for question like " How tall is Miley Cirus". This is why Jon Stewart and others have a field day with Wiki.

And Tedicky, you are so transparent. Of course I knew it was you when the article was changed at the Kilmer article. I was just waiting to see how long it would take you to chime in.

Having said that. I want each of you to state here that the article should be removed - for the "consensus". I wash my hands of this. (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) er

I'm reasonably sure that the admins involved can verify that Interchange88 is a distinct person from myself. Tedickey (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt matter. I had a quick look at his page. He is a monarchist? Enough said. Ted, just state you want the section deleted and lets wait for the other ones to agree. I still stand by what I said. (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

At least two of the people who have taken part in this discussion have come here as requests for outside mediation, namely myself and LadyofShalott. When I came here I had never heard of Fairfax county, let alone the controversy over the "no contact" rule. I believe I am impartial, and it seems to me that LadyofShalott is impartial too; both of us think that this section does not belong in this article. In addition, as far as I am aware nobody else except the IP editor has indicated any significant degree of belief that it should remain. I had therefore come to the conclusion that the time had come to act on consensus and remove the section altogether when, returning here, I saw that the IP editor too had decided to (reluctantly) accept removal. It would have been more satisfactory if we could have finished in a happier frame of mind: is most unfortunate that he still feels such resentment against those who disagree with him, and has such a belief in lack of good faith. However, consensus seems to me to support removing the section, so I shall do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

seems to.... lets get the votes. Isn't that the proper way? Don't speak for others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted entirely. I'd be happy to work out a condensed version of the section as per the suggestions by JamesBWatson. KPalicz (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, none of the WP:Soapbox items belong. This one happens to have a persistent advocate Tedickey (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? KPalicz (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"persistent" should be obvious... Tedickey (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No contact rule controversy (neutral re-write attempt)[edit]

In June 2007, Kilmer Middle School, a school in the FCPS system, attracted national controversy after a 13-year-old student was reprimanded for putting his arm round his girlfriend during a break. The school had a strict policy of "no physical contact", meaning that contact such as high fives or hugs between friends are not allowed. While many school districts ban what they deem to be inappropriate public displays of affection, Kilmer's no physical contact rule is uniquely strict. Despite opposition from some parents and students, and coverage on Fox News, CNN, Time Magazine and the Washington Post, the school system and the principal of the school, Deborah Hernandez, stand behind the rule and have refused to rescind it. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPalicz (talkcontribs) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Sounds good to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really - if it's no longer in effect then the focus and tenses used are inaccurate. Not an improvement. Tedickey (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It is also not by any means a "neutral" rewrite. It is entirely one-sided. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
How is it one-sided? People here seem to believe this isn't a significant issue, so spending multiple paragraphs using quotes and arguments from each side would seem to inflate the importance of what happened. This is just a very simple and very direct description of what happened. It says who opposes the policy and who supports it. It doesn't go into detail about why each side supports or opposes it, it just focuses on the facts of the case which are adequately sourced. I changed "has" to "had" but it'd be nice if someone presented a source saying that the policy was rescinded, because I didn't see that. If I see that I can rewrite the last sentence. Otherwise, if you have an issue with the above paragraph, please be more specific as to your complaints. I don't at all see them as justified. KPalicz (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Now I would like to hear from the others who have objected. Please offer a constructive re-write. Also, I would add that one editor has stated something along the lines that I have refused to accept any re-writes... Have there been any besides mine and Kpalicz? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant leaving it in. It is easy to go from has to had. Also, have you verified the school system no longer has the rule? Also, the entire point of having the article is to cover the fact they had the policy. A policy negatively viewed by the majority of people, at least enough to garner worldwide news coverage. In the real world we don't pretended things never existed just because there has been a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Since there is an article for the school itself, I think any discussion of this belongs in that article, not this one. LadyofShalott 02:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Does the district have this policy or is this policy just at Kilmer Middle School? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the edits by Interchange88, the principal has left and the policy is no longer in effect. (I found no useful sources pro/con) Tedickey (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if they have it or not, they had it- it doesn't change history. It belongs in the system because it a school in the system and the system defended the policy (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • It belongs in the article because it is a school... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, I came here in response to requests for assistance. I, and others, have made numerous attempts to give assistance to the person who made those requests, including attempts to edit the article to resolve the dispute, discussion at far greater length than this minor topic warrants, and so on. The person who made the requests has, however, never been prepared to accept consensus. He has repeatedly made claims to be willing to do so, or to accept a compromise, but has shown no willingness to actually do so. He has persistently reverted edits by others. There is a clear consensus against the opinion of this single purpose editor. (Incidentally, in answer to that editor's comment, we do not do things on Wikipedia by voting, but even if we did so it would be abundantly clear which way the vote would go.) The time has come, I think, to put an end to this disruption. The editor who is the cause of the problem has been edit-warring against consensus for months, and that alone would action to stop the disruption. However, there is also the additional fact that the editor was blocked indefinitely, and has been editing in defiance of that block. I had not previously raised this issue, as I still thought that it would be more constructive to try to reach a solution which the IP editor would accept. However, for months numerous editors have tried to achieve a consensus based solution (both here and elsewhere, such as at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) and nothing has come of it, with the IP editor stubbornly refusing to consider anyone else's opinion, or to follow consensus, re-adding his own opinion and repeatedly removing material expressing any other view. I have, unfortunately, been driven to decide that the time has come to put an end to this disruption by whatever means are necessary, and as a first step I am initiating a sock puppet investigation. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

it is not relevant cause the ban was for a week, so much for the socks. Also, another editor agreed that the section should stay. I have not reverted but one time, and a consensus has not been reached since the new editor worked out an article, you all are just pretending that did not happen. (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Certainly the notice on User talk: says that it is an indefinite block. I cannot find anywhere where it is stated to be for a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that "I have not reverted but one time" means "I have reverted only once", then I suggest looking at [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] where the editor reverted. For simplicity I have given only cases where the reversion was exactly to a previous version, not cases where an edit was substantially reverted but with some changes, nor cases where an edit was reverted exactly, but intervening edits were left in place. I have searched through only part of the edit history, so that there may well be more. As for "another editor agreed that the section should stay", yes, but failed to gain consensus; in fact failed to gain any support at all except from JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Watson, All the statements about the future, and history, and all that don't mean a thing to you do they? Pretending that these things never happened don't mean a thing to you, that is clear from your statements. You can't just erase history. In fact since I pointed out that is what would happen most of the objectors have become silent. I agreed with the re-write and so did another, so ya know, the way I see you guys aren't ahead, although you like to think you are.

Also, The Admin who did the block will know it was not a perm block. The block was for legal threats, not for any sort of edit war. I am sure there is a way to get numerous impartial editors to chime in. I just don't know how to do it. Do you and you a)ren't? (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that I understand how this works-- I do not have to defend the article from the way it was originally was- or how it is now as it was an attempt to "fix" and issue someone else had. In fact it should be reverted back as there was never a consensus to change it. (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe my comments above count, in so much as I don't believe this topic merits discussion in Wikipedia at all. RossPatterson (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think for an issue to garner world wide coverage , CNN,Fox, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, MSNBC, PBS, newspapers in Australia, India, etc. I would think that objectively you would realize your opinion is wrong. (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was NOT established. 3-2 (plus other anon ip's) is not a consensus. I re-wrote the article and shortened it.
The anon-ips appear to be the same person. That's of "sock-puppet" Tedickey (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
it appears a good faith effort. There was not a consensus. Stating that there was does not make it so. Tedickey, I don't believe you have done anything to contribute in creating a NPOV - except criticize. Which is very telling since you were the one who said it was not NPOV as it was first written/ Well, first you said it was not cited well; Then you brought up NPOV. What is your current objection? (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreement was apparently reached on this issue. It seems it has been deleted. I added it back after reading about some students committing suicide. There seems to be a pattern and practice at FCPS of issues with children that seem out of the norm. I see no reason to not have the section in, that it appears was deleted without a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That still needs reliable sources which demonstrate that the content is (a) relevant and (b) notable TEDickey (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems from reading the above that there were quite a few sources that dont seem to work anymore??? Despite opposition from some parents and students, and coverage on Fox News, CNN, Time Magazine and the Washington Post, the school system and the principal of the school, Deborah Hernandez, stand behind the rule and have refused to rescind it. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPalicz (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC) (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I added in the past, and sourced Time magazine. That should certainly be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that there is a relationship between suicide and this issue is unsourced (which flavor - WP:SOAPBOX for instance - is uncertain at this point). For the rest, you might want to spend the time reviewing the change history of the topic rather than making accusations against random editors (see WP:AGF) TEDickey (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC

Tedickey are trying to obfuscate the issue? I studied the "change history" and quoted where it was decided to leave the section in this 'talk'. And clearly there is a connection between issues as they relate to policies adopted by the FCPS Board that relate to how students are treated and the consequences of how they were treated and the outcomes.

What is you connection to Northern Va as you seem to edit many articles from that area. Are you sure you have a NPOV. I think it is proper for you to step back from this issue.

Third opinion by Martin Hogbin[edit]

Is this the section for which a third opinion is requested? What exactly is the dispute? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) It looks to me as though this dispute well past the third opinion stage. Several editors are already involved. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the disputed section. As editors have said above, it is about one specific school, which its own article, and it was several years ago. There seems to me to be a clear consensus against this section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

the section was LEFT in. The consensus was to leave it. But at some point someone removed it. The section was in there. It was removed without anyone noticing. Again, the consensus was to leave it in, and it was...until someone did not notice. Why leave the section about the kids killing themselves then? That was at a particular school also??? follow me, it's about the policy they allow to be put in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

When it says the Consensus was not established, tedickey is talking about a consensus to leave it there. he felt because a couple of the "voters' were anon they did not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Partial page protection[edit]

My edit, which clearly has a consensus of registered editors, has been reverted by an IP. I am going to ask for partial page protection here so that only registered users can edit.

Sorry people, I give up. We now have full protection again. I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully did you read what I said? First of all there was a consensus to LEAVE IT AS IT WAS, not change it to have the section removed. Again, the consensus was to leave the section in there. And it was left in there. It was LATER removed without consensus. Second, another question is why would you want it removed? Logically, if another issue, such as SUICIDES, relates to a school rule in the FCPS and is left on the page, clearly a rule at another school which prohibits Freedom of Expression, the 1st Amendment - in case you are not from America, that does not allow high five or hugs or handshakes, which is of course freedom of expression, needs to be left in. There is a pattern and practice of a callous disregard for how these children are being treated in the fcps system. When kids can't hug, or weren't allowed to hug or shake hands, then the system gets a "zero tolerance" policy that leads to suicides of TWO students...I think we can all agree something is wrong. Do you see the connection? Relevant to the people( the board) who made the decisions. And fyi, students do have rights. And THAT is why a Goolge search indicates the issue was covered world wide. And for your further reading; School speech

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969),[123] the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not "materially and substantially" interrupt school activities.[124] Justice Abe Fortas wrote, [S]chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students ... are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.[125] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The editors who want the section removed, removed it 2 years after they argued and LOST to have it removed before. The reason was cited as one incident 6 years ago. History needs to be remembered for a reason.
(cur | prev) 10:42, 5 June 2013‎ JamesBWatson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,775 bytes) (-1,548)‎ . . (One incident in one of the district's schools, six years ago: this is undue weight.)

(cur | prev) 00:15, 31 May 2013‎ Tedickey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,323 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (revert - already in list)

Alternate Chinese name[edit]

The Epoch Times article "費郡公校廣徵民意 可望實施新版社會學教科書." uses the official Chinese name and another one:

  • "費克斯公立學校 "

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

New Grading System[edit]

I noticed an error in the article about the new FCPS 10-point grading system. As a student in an FCPS high school, I know that an A- is a part of the grading scale and was not included in the article. Below is from the FCPS website(

The Fairfax County School Board approved a modified ten-point scale, complete with pluses and minuses. The new scale will be effective at the beginning of the 2009-10 school year.

New FCPS Grading Scale (effective beginning of 2009-10 school year)

A 93-100 = 4.0
A- 90-92 = 3.7
B+ 87-89 = 3.3
B 83-86 = 3.0
B- 80-82 = 2.7
C+ 77-79 = 2.3
C 73-76 = 2.0
C- 70-72 = 1.7
D+ 67-69 = 1.3
D 64-66 = 1.0
F below 64 = 0.0

Supersmarty2014 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

editor's enhancement of source[edit]

The indicated statement does not appear in the given source. The source provided would make a somewhat useful supplementary source for the following sentence. The sentence tagged can be removed, since there is no corresponding WP:RS. TEDickey (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Added page for reference. As for RS, the author got his PhD for it, which qualifies him as an expert. Paradoctor (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I read that, before commenting, and your reply is nonresponsive. By the way, to be classified as an "expert", it's not enough to write something. Rather, people have to take notice of it (this author appears to be largely ignored - see Google scholar for instance). TEDickey (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The text supporting the statement is cited and quoted. If you disagree with that, you'll have to explain what you mean, it is not obvious.
"take notice": You may be confusing reliability with notability here. Paradoctor (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The source says "In an effort to avoid integration black students were sent outside of Fairfax County to Manassas and Washington." Your "quote" changes the wording (and meaning), but substituting the word "refused" (essentially, the difference between evasion and confrontation). There's nothing reliable about that. (The next source also is freely interpreted with its introduction of "designated", having no clear parallel in the cited document - per the source there were two school systems, not specific schools set aside, which is what the term "designated" means). TEDickey (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
""quote"" Please do make an effort to find a reasonable interpretation of my words. The quote is in the reference, the paraphrase is in the article body, and you have been around long enough to know the difference.
"substituting" The refusal is implicit in the decision to send the pupils out of the county. As you should be aware, articles should paraphrase and summarize. OTOH, if that is what it takes, I'm ok with building this aspect of the article with quotations. After all, we're talking about two sentences here.
"next source" This section is about my edit, not someone else's. Let's stay on focus, ok? Paradoctor (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to lower the level down to "implicit", there's no point in carrying on a discussion, since it's no longer relevant to the issue which I tagged. bye. 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take that as stating that this discussion is resolved. Paradoctor (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Breaking up History Section[edit]

I've been adding material to the History section of this article and it's getting very long. I'm thinking about breaking it up into smaller sections, and two ways immediately spring to mind: either breaking it up by decade (1960s, 1970s, 1980s, etc.) or by Superintendent (Funderburk, Davis, Deck, Burkholder, Spillane, etc.). It's also likely that it'll eventually need to be its own article with an inline redirect.--Chuckhoffmann (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FCPS is cracking down on vandalism[edit]

Just so you all know, FCPS is cracking down on vandalism. Vandalism investigations are being made.


Johannon (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fairfax County Public Schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fairfax County Public Schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

History section[edit]

Just as a reminder, the history section has become original research by picking and choosing from primary sources. Knowledgeable secondary sources are preferred versus editor's original composition TEDickey (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)