Talk:Christian Alliance P.C. Lau Memorial International School

Controversy Section on the CAIS Page
Hello. I have been working to update some information on the CAIS wikipedia page to reflect more current information, such as current enrollment and including CAIS' second campus in Lai Yiu. In doing so, I came across the Controversy section added in February. I looked further into the issue reported in the cited news sources and corrected the timeframe of the mentioned case from 2013 to 2005. I also found that the result of the small claims case was that the Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim. I have added that information and included the case reference. With that said, this seems a temporary fix and I would assert that ultimately the Controversy section should be removed for the following reasons:

1) Dismissed Small Claim: The mentioned claim was dismissed by the Tribunal ten years ago. It does not seem to merit mention or the gravity of a controversy label. For what other organization would a ten year old dismissed small claims case warrant mention as a controversy if it was not a very high profile case? It would be difficult to find an organization that would be applicable to. A review of other international schools in Hong Kong's Wikipedia descriptions (for example, though we can look at this from a bigger picture perspective than just CAIS' immediate peers) indicates that the precedent to call a ten year old resolved small claims case a controversy on Wikipedia, or mention it at all, is not there.

2) Balanced Perspective: The description under the heading goes into several sentences and quite some detail about the claimant's claim, associating weighty terms such as "bullying" with only one name (the defendant's) mentioned. To retain this section and achieve an unbiased balance, one would need to provide equal information about the claimant's name or how the defendant responded in greater depth and what reasoning the court gave for dismissing the case. It would not be prudent to do so given the apparent age of the youth the claimant was speaking on behalf of. As it is, including the school's apparent brief response regarding the student's mental status seems to bring undue negative attention to an individual minor. Given that the claim was dismissed and that the case is a decade old, it just seems more prudent to remove this section altogether than to add details which introduce new problems.

Given the above reasons, I intend to remove the mentioned content in the near future, but wanted to do my due diligence, laying out the reason directly to you with advanced notice and allowing an opportunity for brief dialogue between now and the end of the day on May 10, 2015 before proceeding. I appreciate your interest in this Wikipedia page, your citation of sources and trust this can be resolved fairly and efficiently with constructive dialogue.

Thank you, Hk8113 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the Apple Daily story but there was never any follow-up. I wasn't aware of the outcome that you point to. I would agree with your comments in general that the controversies section appears inappropriate under those circumstances. I think it can be removed. For the record, could you perhaps supply a link to any report that mentions the dismissal? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I searched the case online and there is no url/link I can find. I have viewed the hard copy of the Tribunal decision (Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Claim No. SCTC049477/05, 2007-10-08). I would imagine this is a matter of public record searchable at the Tribunal or an archive where its decisions are stored. When I remove the Controversies section, the edit history on April 27, 2015 and this talk page will show the claim # in case anyone wanted to do further research. With your response above in mind, I will go ahead and remove the section. Thanks again for the dialogue. Hk8113 (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Apple Daily is not really reliable due to Tabloid journalism (or market oriented reporting), which they just lost interest to report the follow up.


 * Per WP:UNDUE it may be not enough to say the school had anything wrong, but may or may not have a merit to mention that was a lawsuit existed. Matthew hk (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Alliance International School. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204065055/http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140601/-2-3276678/1.html to http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140601/-2-3276678/1.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Christian Alliance International School (Butterfly Valley)
The content about Christian Alliance International School (Butterfly Valley) may need a split (pass WP:GNG or not is another problem). Some how the school was not "relocated" but open a new one as the original "Christian Alliance International School" (Christian Alliance P.C. Lau Memorial International School) was re-opened in the original Kowloon City campus in 2020. Matthew hk (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And both schools stop to use the domain http://cais.edu.hk/ Matthew hk (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)