Talk:Katherine Delmar Burke School

notability

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

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

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

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

full revision that deleted many sections on January 28, 2022

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

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

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

censorship

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

controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article

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

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

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

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

Reworking article

@Twsabin: Restoring to an earlier date (you suggest about Feb 8 [4]) is one possibility. But even as early as mid-January there started to be some COI editing from an IP, and later Burkesschool, intending to scrub the article of all taint, and add a pile of peacock feathers. I've been monitoring the article for a few months, and I remember a few brief points in time where it was good and balanced, in my opinion. Heaven knows I won't be able to find that among the haystack of editing. I even noted a couple rare sources that came up that could actually add something germaine to the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reverts

Moved from User talk:Twsabin/Archive 1 § reverts

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

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

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

additions to history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) again

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

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

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

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

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

Again, The time stamps clearly show that you [IP 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7] restored your version of the material before you opened a discussion here, let alone before anyone responded or there was any consensus for the material. I undid the IP's initial edit at 21:12, April 3, 2022‎ [5]. The IP restored the material to the article at 21:50, April 3, 2022 [6], and the IP opened talk page discussion about the reverted material at 21:51, April 3, 2022 [7] Meters (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Not going through this again.

Nope. Not going through this again. This edit [8] offers two primary sources from Burke's showing reference to a program (Rosetta Lee training), and another primary source to a slide show from the training plan (which doesn't even mention Burke's). All to support complete original research (I'm not even going to link to WP:OR anymore).

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

Here is another significant diff

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

References

We are not going through this again:

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

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

Rosetta Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a diff [9] Please do not bite newbies and IPs. 2601:646:C200:1D90:0:0:0:10B0 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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