Talk:Lancaster Country Day School

Buzz Aldrin
I've removed the listing of the astronaut Buzz Aldrin as a notable alumnus. It's not supported by his article, and the source given (a classmates.com page) lists "Buzz Aldrin" as having attended the school from 1969 to 1973, so it's either a joke or a different—and nonnotable—Aldrin with the same nickname. Deor (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Murder by LCDS graduate
According to this Jan. 9, 2009, article from the Lancaster paper, on March 1, 2004, a 1997 graduate of LCDS who is a diagnosed schizophrenic stabbed two students at Maharishi University of Management. One died, and Maharishi University of Management was sued for negligence. I don't find anything on Wikipedia regarding the murder, and I don't think the connection with LCDS belongs in the article, but I record it here as an FYI. --Orlady (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
A recent removal of a "controversy" section added by myself is being discussed here. The reasons for the removal by General Ization were:
 * 1) It was considered news, and Wikipedia is not a news site.
 * 2) It was considered unimportant. It was considered traumatic at the time but no longer relevant.

I would like to refute both of these claims.

1) Although I cited a news article, this was only because the news article contained factual information and proved the points I was making. The event in question (the removal of Daphna Ben-Chaim from her position as Head of Upper School) is an important event in school history and is not breaking news. The controversial element of it still exists. It may belong under "history", but the content itself deserves a place on the page.

2) The ramifications of the removal continue to resonate throughout the school community, and it has created a sense of distrust which contributes to the ongoing controversy of the construction of squash courts by the school. When discussing the school and its culture as well as the power the Head of School holds, the removal of this person is an event which should be taken into account. The controversy surrounding the man who fired the Head of Upper School still exists, and this man continues to hold his position. The section should not be erased entirely.

--Theburningringoffire (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Theburningringoffire I agree. It's still controversial, it's not news, it's a part of the school. By the reasoning General Ization, the section "expansion plan" should be taken out because that is "news". There is no question of your section's importance and its value to this page. --Merrychristmaseve (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You have thus far failed to show (by citing independent, reliable sources) that the events of 2009 have any current significance to an encyclopedic discussion of the school. A single, contemporary news article from 2009 cannot do so. You will need to cite reliable sources that show this to be the case before the 2009 events will be appropriate to be included here. Virtually every organization has experienced some form of personnel dispute in its past. That does not make such disputes appropriate content for articles in an encyclopedia. In fact, claims made in discussing such disputes may very well represent violations of Wikipedia's BLP policy, since a discussion with a single source likely does not reflect all sides of the dispute and may include claims that are defamatory to one or the other party.  Please see also Wikipedia's policies concerning neutral point of view and undue weight.  General Ization   Talk   19:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And yes, it is entirely possible that the section on "Expansion plans" should be removed. See WP:CRYSTAL.  General Ization   Talk   19:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @General Ization, if an editor of this page finds and cites numerous, balanced sources, discussing why the removal of the person in question was disruptive, notable, and relevant to a discussion of the school, I am assuming the events of 2009 will be considered appropriate to be included on this page. It is important to note that when discussing a disagreement, opposing opinions must be touched on (as is the nature of discussing a disagreement). What I wrote, and what the newspaper wrote, included statements by the members of the Board supporting the decision as well as statements made by teachers opposing the decision. Perhaps a better title would be "Leadership change and subsequent controversy" or something of the like.
 * --Theburningringoffire (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily agree with the way Theburningringoffire structured his piece, but I also don't agree with General Ization in saying that it should be taken down. It's a small school. With that in mind, such a leadership change relative to the size of the school is equivalent to the CFO of a large company being thrown out by the CEO. The question of whether or not the school's wikipedia page should exist has been answered, so anything of relative importance should be included. Other than the objectivity of the piece in question, what exactly is there to resolve? It's a major event which (as the sources tell us, and as we can infer) changed the landscape of the school and caused major controversy which disrupted the learning environment  ("teachers abandoned course curriculum"). As far as fixing the neutrality of the section, just have multiple editors work on it and ensure that both sides are represented fairly. I saw a number of quotations in support of the decision in the newspaper article that were left out of the piece Theburningringoffire wrote. Include those.

--2601:987:380:49:A067:75C3:66B0:9C5B (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The piece was taken down before any other editors had time to correct it and/or verify its credibility and/or solidify its balance. With a school which only serves 625 students, events like these are important and have a lasting impact, especially because someone was so quickly demoted from a position that person held since 1995. Equating it to a large corporation removing a CFO is appropriate. Obviously, there will be some disruption, and seeing as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (WP:PAPER) the information can and should be included, provided it be edited. It's one thing if a student is expelled or a teacher quits. But the head of an entire high school being removed and a subsequent dispute filled with tumult, passion, anger, and sadness is, in my opinion, noteworthy. The current history section could be improved so this addition doesn't look out of place. If people want to come on to this wikipedia page to find information about the school, what the school's leadership has looked like and what is was founded on, then this, among other things, should be added. I'm not saying this wikipedia page should be as expansive as the school's website, but it could use some additional information. It is possible that with those additions the section in question would look less out of place and would appear more relevant.

--Merrychristmaseve (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @General Ization, "Expansion Plans" does not fall under WP:CRYSTAL because the plan has been approved and construction is already set to begin in the summer of 2016. Additionally, your removal on the basis of defamatory comments may violate WP:CENSOR. The claims were made on the basis of Lisks's actions. It may come off as offensive to some and righteous to others. Just because they may seem offensive to some doesn't mean the piece should be taken down. Those remarks were made by a variety of people and accurately represents the sentiment of a considerable number of members of the community. The piece also didn't agree with those remarks: I simply stated they existed, who they were said by, and why they were said. The very existence of those remarks may actually support the retainment of this section, because it displays the unrest that occurred after this demotion. I agree with 2601:987:380:49:A067:75C3:66B0:9C5B in saying that what I added should be edited and more of the proponent side included, but consider that Steve Lisks's decision to removal the Head of Upper School was overall an unpopular decision, and there just isn't much to be said for the proponent's side. As long as the piece itself does not support either side, the amount of remarks made by proponents or opponents doesn't matter.
 * --Theburningringoffire (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The page on the Westboro Baptist Church is going to include defamation because that's exactly what the WBC spits out. It's a matter of whether or not the article itself agrees with or disagrees with what WBC says. And obviously there's going to be more content on people who disagree with the WBC because there just are more people who disagree (and for good reason). Believe me, I'm not saying that anything on this page is even comparable with WBC, I'm just using it as an example. If defamatory statements were made on the opponent's side by a number of people, you'd want to include those. In concurrence with those above me, edit the original piece to ensure the piece itself doesn't lean one way or another. If there are just more people who've made statements on the opponent's side, so be it. Maybe copy a few of Lisk's statements that the article used. --HowCouldYouKnow (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @General Ization With a large number of faculty members signing a petition and a huge amount of parents coming to an unfortunately timed meeting, I think we've resolved undue weight. If it seems like there's more content in the wikipedia piece about the opposing side, it's because there was systemic mistrust between the faculty and the administration, and there were more people, or more active people, opposing the demotion. You can't balance out a piece with content that doesn't exist. We've also resolved neutral point of view by suggesting that the removal of the section be reverted and time be given to make the writing more neutral. We've also clarified the difference, for any editor looking to contribute, between biased writing and fair writing about biased or one-sided statements. Correct us if we're wrong. Being somewhat of a "superior member" here, you can of course revert any attempted edits to the section we make, but I think you should give time for the piece to adapt, evolve, and be edited. Similar to how moderators gave time for this very page to be edited. (See: Articles for deletion/Lancaster Country Day School) --Merrychristmaseve (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing that this article has been rated as a stub, it's best that we continue adding to it, taking into account relative importance. The page has already been verified as significant enough to exist, so all ensuing edits should be relatively judged. It may not have changed the world, or even the county, but if it seriously affected the school (which, as we have shown, the controversy in 2009 did and continues to), it should be included, the importance of the school itself notwithstanding. (See: WP:PAPER) That being said, improvements should continue to be made on this page and I, most likely along with others, will continue to do so to make this a succinct but factual and informative page. --Theburningringoffire (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I expanded on the history of the school and edited the piece to make it more objective and more accurately reflect both sides of the debate. I also clarified the importance of the event and put it in an appropriate section with appropriate labeling. Please, all those involved in this discussion make edits as you see fit. I ask that you do not take it down and instead edit or suggest edits here to further improve this Wikipedia page. --Theburningringoffire (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * With regard to your (retroactively edited) comment about WP:CENSOR, see this there: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." In addition, please see WP:LIBEL.
 * Please proceed, but keep in mind the important distinction between truth, which is often subjective, and verifiable facts, which are what we require here. Anything which is not verifiable can be and, especially if it involves the reputation of any person, will be removed.  And it will still be necessary to show verifiably (through citations) that the events of six years ago have current and/or future significance to the school.   General Ization   Talk   03:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your help and your clarification. I hope the current wording accurately reflects that the comments are those of third parties and are not supported or opposed by the article itself. I also hope that the arguments of both sides were more accurately represented in the newest edit. Concerning claims of libel, the statements (in quotations) that concern Mr. Lisk are not in any way supported by the article, and are indeed required to accurately reflect a major side and sentiment apparent in the controversy surrounding the demotion. The text does not purport that Mr. Lisk is "insensitive", merely states that a member of the community labelled him as such, following a systemic mindset that was elaborated on in the cited article and therefore verifiable. However, with good editing in mind, additional citations will be sought out and hopefully we will be able to resolve this conflict. Despite this, it is important to consider the size of this school and the county in which it resides. An event which might carry significant relative importance to the school may not be extensively covered and thus sources may be scarce. However, I am confident that in time, especially with the recent expansion plan dispute, more evidence of divisiveness as a result of this 2009 debate will surface. --Theburningringoffire (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * General Ization, does Theburningringoffire have to show that the events of 2009 carry a current and/or future significance to the school? Inferably, an event as large as the "beloved" head of an Upper School being demoted by a head of school six months after his hiring would resonate within school culture 6 years after. However, let's assume this is not the case, seeing as we have no contemporary article discussing the ramifications of this 2009 event. Theburningringoffire has shown, through the citation of a verifiable source, that the event had a large and notable impact at the time, and therefore belongs under the "History" section. It's a significant event that occurred in the school's history and affected the way the school operated in 2009. If the CFO of a company was fired by the CEO 20 years ago, it may not have much of an impact now, but when discussing the history of that company and significant events which have occurred in that company's history, the firing would be necessary to touch on, regardless of whether or not it continues to have an effect. --2601:987:380:49:A067:75C3:66B0:9C5B (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedic entry on a school is neither a yearbook nor a journal of the school's entire history. Though the event was significant, even traumatic, at the time, unless it can be shown that it has current or future relevance to the school as it exists today, it does not belong in the article. I've said this now several times, in several ways, and I don't know how to make it any more clear.  To respond to your analogy, an encyclopedic entry on a small school in Pennsylvania doesn't require or even justify the same level of historical detail as expected in an article on a major corporation; and there are many, many stories of highly traumatic changes in leadership at major corporations, affecting thousands or even tens of thousands of people, that are not detailed in articles here; indeed there are entire books written about them (but not here).  Schools, and churches, and corporations, go through traumatic transitions all the time.  That does not make the details of the transitions encyclopedic.  General Ization   Talk   05:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, General Ization. Although I disagree somewhat on what is justified historically in this article on the basis of relativity and WP:PAPER, I understand your point. --2601:987:380:49:A067:75C3:66B0:9C5B (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the others in this conversation have addressed your appropriate and correct concern General Ization ="You have thus far failed to show (by citing independent, reliable sources) that the events of 2009 have any current significance to an encyclopedic discussion of the school. A single, contemporary news article from 2009 cannot do so. You will need to cite reliable sources that show this to be the case before the 2009 events will be appropriate to be included here. Virtually every organization has experienced some form of personnel dispute in its past. That does not make such disputes appropriate content for articles in an encyclopedia. In fact, claims made in discussing such disputes may very well represent violations of Wikipedia's BLP policy, since a discussion with a single source likely does not reflect all sides of the dispute and may include claims that are defamatory to one or the other party." Personnel changes happen all the time in any place of business or institution. To devote a paragraph to a single personnel change for a school more than 100 years old betrays a skewed perspective that is shaded by opinion, not fact. It is simply not a defining moment in 100 years of school history. If the 2009 "controversy" was so important, why was it only added to the wiki for the school in the final days of 2015? The answer is because the writers have feelings and an opinion about it, not because it is a relevant fact for an encyclopedia entry to the school.DulceyA (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)DulceyA


 * @DulceyA As it stands, the conflict being discussed is not about whether or not the controversy (yes, controversy) in 2009 was of any importance. An extensive article in a relatively prominent newspaper proves that, at the time, the incident was traumatic and controversial. From the article: ""Anyone who tells you that the faculty have settled back into their old ways is sorely mistaken," wrote the teacher. "There is a culture of fear surrounding all interactions with the Head of School's office for Upper School faculty."" More comments like this exist, some teachers even making anonymous defamatory comments about the Head of School. This incident was unambiguously controversial and traumatic. This discussion is about whether or not this controversy that occurred in 2009 is encyclopedic. Currently, what the section lacked was a variety of credible sources which show that residual effects from the 2009 controversy exist today, and that these effects have an impact on the school and the interactions within it. I agree without these that the section, as it was written before 162.223.16.194 took it down, lacked this. I agree the incident undeniably does not define the school as a whole. It was a prominent incident at the time, but it is yet to be shown that it maintains its prominence today.
 * If various, credible sources are found which show that the events of 2009 continue to hold importance today and still affect the school, then the section which was previously posted will be reposted. A discussion has already been held regarding WP:NPOV and efforts were made to ensure that both sides of the controversy were accurately represented. If WP:V is met in the future, then I encourage you, and everyone else in this discussion and on wikipedia to make edits which improve or correct the neutrality of the section, instead of simply taking the section down. As for WP:BLP, the writing cannot agree with any side of the discussion, but if comments were made that are relevant to an encyclopedic entry regarding this controversy, they must be added. The section was not making claims about Mr. Lisk, merely presenting comments that others made about him, comments which were important to detailing the incident. I agree with General Ization in that the section needs to meet WP:V by citing materials which show the events of 2009 are still relevant. If these are found, I will bring it up in this discussion. Until then, I will not attempt to repost the Daphna Ben-Chaim controversy unless other users believe it is appropriate and contribute to this discussion accordingly. --Theburningringoffire (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lancaster Country Day 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/20150723042036/http://www.historicstgeorges.org/sites/default/files/2%20A%20Century%20After_The%20Legacy%20of%20the%20Appenzellers.pdf to http://www.historicstgeorges.org/sites/default/files/2%20A%20Century%20After_The%20Legacy%20of%20the%20Appenzellers.pdf

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) 05:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)