Talk:Taipei American School/Second Controversy Discussion Archive

Ok, I'm a TAS alum (graduated class '04). I'm aware of the fact that TAS is often perceived as a "a body of rich kids who are spoiled and overly competitive". For those who actually attended TAS...we can't really deny that the image is an adequately accurate portrait of the TAS student body.

and as of the current controversy section, I'd say the WASC report (please provide a cited source) does have a point. TAS is not exactly as liberal as it appears. There've been a lot of static between the administration and the student body since I was in high school. The type of censorship enforced at TAS is quite intimidating (at least more so than its IASAS and local counterparts).

Hey, if anyone care to edit the controversy page again, please present both sides of the story impartially.

Controversy section revisited
I would like to hear from the anonymous IP and odmk69 regarding controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.57.195 (talk • contribs) 19:15, March 30, 2006

--- The previous controversy section was quite biased and written by someone who seemed to have a grudge, so I wouldn't even make consider it. I agree with 128.61.*. We need to settle this issue and not act like kids reverting articles back and forth. First off, I am an alunmni of TAS, and still have siblings at TAS. And to get some stuff straight: TAS isn't like what it used to be. And the general Taiwanese public view of TAS is not the same either. So I wouldn't let some of your preconceived notions of TAS/Taiwan get in the way of your subconscious and conscious thinking when editing articles. I agree that we need to be very careful when putting controversy section, and i initially did not support it, but after reading the current WASC accreditation report, I believe this is relevant. Tt would be advisable for Wikibofh and BenjaminTsai (and any others) to read this if you haven't yet.

If you're like me and have read countless wikipedia articles, you've noticed that Controversy sections are very prevalent. The beauty of wikipedia is readers receive unbias, objective information that one wouldn't be able to find on an official webpage. For example, go to the article on Abercrombie and Fitch, potential buyers (including me) would find the "Controversy/Criticism" article very relevant and important when making a decision whether to purchase products from them. I think its the same way with TAS, prospective parents who are contemplating in moving to Taiwan, choosing an appropiate school and environment for their children.....they should and need to know other POPULAR viewpoints, other contrary ideas, that one would not find at www.tas.edu.tw. For example did you know that over twenty faculty members, both teachers and other staff, are leaving TAS after this school year because they feel that they can no longer function in the current environment? This is information that I believe prospective students and their parents should know. If users wanted to know specific TAS information they wouldn't be heading to this article, they would be heading over to www.tas.edu.tw. We need to be careful that this article isn't an advertisement but a complete objective encyclopedia article.

--ODMK69

--- I agree that the WASC material is relevant and appropriate for the Controversy section. However, the appropriateness of the other contents injected into the Controversy section is questionable (to put it mildly) and definitely not written with the lofty ideal of NPOV in mind. --BenjaminTsai Talk 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

--- ODMK69 Writes: "And to get some stuff straight: TAS isn't like what it used to be." What does that mean? Without data, that's strictly POV. He/she also writes, "And the general Taiwanese public view of TAS is not the same ei"ther." Please cite your links to the surveys that support this. While people you talk to may hold such views, those cannot substitute for public views and are strictly POV. ("Data" is not the plural of "anecdote").
 * WASC, maybe. The other portions,  were just biased POV.  The sources they provided did not validate the content.  Keep it neutral.  Wikibofh(talk) 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section is biased abd should not exist; quoting only one paragraph (and not even using the correct year) from a lengthy report is misleading. Such usage is acceptable in a blog but not in a reference section. The opening sentences of the report could have been quoted as well, "Taipei American School has a well-earned reputation for being a very good school. It has a reputation in the South East Asian region and worldwide for highly motivated students, a challenging curriculum, a very fine teaching faculty and some very pleasing external examination results." Selectively quoting material out of context is not suitable for a reference work.

Comment added 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) ---

Can you provide us with more information on the WASC report? I've written the Taipei American School alumni office a few days ago to confirm and request more information about the excerpt in the Controversy section, but the school is currently closed for Spring break until April 10th. --BenjaminTsai Talk 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps a link or a reference to the report (if it is even online) would be helpful, because right now, the quote in the TAS article is quoted from an unknown source. All I'm pretty sure that what's written is fairly accurate, it's POV...and it unless it can be shown that it is indeed a quote from the WASC report and not someone's paraphrase, it should be removed. -- Mattrixed Talk 06:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The WASC report is about 40 pages long and maintained in an area of the website that requires a username and password. As such it may not be considered as published. Second, while the paragraph may be in the report, and the paragraph does make for salacious reading, it does not begin to represent the report in its entirety. Publishing it is not NPOV. Note that "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are No original research and Neutral point of view." The Section violates at least one of those guidelines. As such, I've removed the section. 61.229.173.49 12:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is neither original research (as it was done by WASC, not us) nor a violation of WP:NPOV. NPOV does not say you can't provide criticism, it says you must try to be balanced and neutral.  My main problem is verification, because we have a 40 page report that is having a single paragraph quoted.  That does not give provide any context and can't be verfied as to it's accuracy.  Wikibofh(talk) 14:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Typatigertot 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WASC is the body that gives TAS full academic accreditation. So the importantce of this section is very relevant. That being said, anonIP talks about verification. 61.229.* Have you read the report? If so did you see what context the report was written? if you did, how can you think this quote is out of context? This quote is in the first section (Opening Remarks by WASC Visiting Team Chair). After briefly discussing the school's background, and the visiting team in the first two paragraphs, the WASC report immediately claims that the school is in a crisis. How can this be out of context. Crisis! Something of this nature will not appear in the 30rd page, or in some random section of a report. It is in the abstract of the report.  I am friends with many senior staff members and obtained a copy of this pdf early on. I am sure it will be released to TAS parents very soon (if not already). How many of you have actually read the article?


 * In case you didn't catch it below, the PDF was released to the school community, including parents, days after the report was delivered. And yes, it is significant that the suggestion that TAS is in a crisis appears in the Opening Remarks, I certainly don't believe that Opening Remarks can be considered as an "abstract" of the entire report. Also, I do believe the context is important. As I note in my post below, there are many other quotes which could be considered significant. If you believe it is significant that the quoted paragraph is the fourth paragraph in the Opening Remarks, perhaps there is a significance that the first talks about TAS' "well-earned reputation for being a very good school." I'm not arguing about which line is more significant, but my point is that position in the report may not be the best measure of the significance of a particular statement. In fact, I personally believe the suggestion that there is a crisis is the most notable part of the report - but it would be unfair to both TAS and WASC to only include this paragraph without including the positive things WASC highlights. It would be akin to looking at a report card with several A's and several C's and only publishing information about the C's and not the A's. Regardless of whether or not there are more C's than A's or that the C's are more notable than the A's, information about the A's still needs to be publish to provide an accurate portrayal of the report and to provide a more NPOV. (Waphle 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC))


 * opening remarks is the closest thing to an abstract. clearly the quoted paragraph is the main point of the opneing remarks. you can post the whole body of the opening remarks in here to see 63.201.35.145 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't because I can't get a copy. :)  Hence my concern with verifiability. Wikibofh(talk) 14:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Waphle sums up the issue very nicely with his/her comparison to a report card. One alarmest paragraph does not capture the entirety of the report and posting it violates WP:NPOV. Controversy is also not a suitable subhead as this is really about accreditation. I changed the section to "Accreditation" and rewrote it in an attempt to provide a more balanced view. And, yes, I have read the report cover to cover, I was at the presentation, and also met several times with the visiting committee. However, because the document is explicitly not a public document I don't believe it meets Verifiabilty and excerpts from it then wouldn't meet Verifiabilty. Board minutes are far more verifiable as they are posted publicly, but the minutes of the March 28 meeting are not yet posted.

By the way there are no "senior staff members" at TAS, although there are some members of the faculty and staff who have been there anywhere from well-settled-in to much-too-long. 61.229.173.93 10:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Waphle's report card comparison makes sense....if you were talking about describing the school in general. But that wasn't the case for the Crisis/Controversy section. The section was there to let readers know about the current state of the school....which was in a crisis. Sure the school is great academically, passionate learners, eager to work things out, blah blah good job everyone. but the point of the section was to get address the crisis. Back to the report card comparison..it's more like we have a elementary student who is noted by ppl to be the premier, best, wutever student in the school...great..he is the best..however he has major issues dealing with his foul attitude with his peers, faculty, wutever...Isn't it notable to be pointed out? the student's parents wouldl ike to know that. Its not about pickign A's and C's...it's picking about notable issues that need to be addressed. TAS is known for being reputable academically, "premier", sending colleges to "leading universities" (and all the other previous posts), etc...They are notable, but already addressed. The Crisis is notable and has not been adequately addressed. Now it seems like we're picking the C's and leaving the F's. Why has the section been renamed? We aren't writing this section because of an accreditation issue, we're writing this section due ot the CRISIS! TO me it seems like the majority of the editors are softening up the issue. What happeend to the exisitng quote? The one describing the school climate as "toxic"? Instead it seems it has been filtered out with soley happy, hopeful talk about passionate ppl, etc...That's great adn I do so see how its relevant, but this seems to be as selctive, intentional ommission of a very notable information. I think a lot of stuff written in the accreditation section is relevant, however the section name is impromper and could be misleading. Typatigertot 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems appropriate to me, since that section of the article is dealing with the WASC accreditation. To call it controversy now doesn't make sense, since there is no controversy. It is just a stating of facts about WASC, its accreditation process, and whether or not TAS will be accreditated. Pretty straightforward. -- Mattrixed Talk 17:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do agree that the section titled Accreditation is not accurate either. Separating the paragraph in question into its own Controversy section puts a different value judgement on that paragraph and the quotes presented in the Accreditation section.
 * I do, however, stand by my report card comparison. The article does not talk (or did not until the Accreditation section was added) about the school and its reputation in a positive or negative way. Adding the information about WASC's opinion that there is a crisis would need to be balanced out by positive comments by either WASC or another body/individual. Either we leave all the A's, C's, or F's out (as we did before) or we put them all in (after extensive discussion). (Waphle 10:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

BenjaminTsai Photo

 * I was wondering what is the need to upload a picture of benjamin tsai and saying he is hot because it is so full of gibberish, I decided to delete it.


 * It's a personal attack on me by an anonymous editor that has been giving us a bit of trouble on this article. --BenjaminTsai Talk 10:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, okay, case cleared.

why is it a personal attack? i'm doing a favor for you!! 63.201.35.145 08:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Leading universities
"leading universities" is clearly POV as there is no official ranking of schools in the US - 218.161.4.195 on 17:14, March 31, 2006 in article Edit Summary

While there is no single official ranking of universities, there are many rankings that is in common use such as US News, Princeton Review, Wall Street Journal, of which US News is generally considered as the most authoritative for undergraduate rankings. Internationally we have the widely quoted Shanghai Jiao Tong University's "Academic Ranking of World Universities". --BenjaminTsai Talk 06:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

then, according to your idea of what a leading university is, most TAS students do not attend leading universities. It should be left out.


 * Many do, and more so than the national average for high schools within the United States or Taiwan. --BenjaminTsai Talk 10:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

many is like.. 5% of the class? lol. there are many high schools in the US with better college matriculation than TAS, yet their wikipedia pages do not state that their students attend leading universities


 * Then cite a source for your changes. Wikibofh(talk) 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

how come no source is needed from benjamin tsai? why do you assume that TAS has good college matriculation!?!??!?! 63.201.35.145 17:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a bunch of reasons. Here are a few:
 * 1) That was the consensus version, and lack of good sources there does not mean changes shouldn't be sourced.
 * 2) He's a respected logged in editor, so gets more slack.
 * 3) We've already provided that source in the past.  Here it is again, just for completeness sake.
 * Wikibofh(talk) 18:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Premier English-based School in Taiwan
"Taipei American School is widely considered as the premier English-based college preparatory school in Taiwan. [1]" is not a POV statement as it does not assert that Taipei American School is the premier English-based college preparatory school, only that it is a widely held view that it is the premier English-based college preparatory school. --BenjaminTsai Talk 06:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, and I contend that it is not a widely held view that TAS is the premier english based collelge preparatory school. It is hard to verify such statements, for the sake of correctness, leave it out.


 * I've modified it to include only Taipei pending further evaluation of NEHS. Otherwise, it is clearly a widely held view that Taipei American School is the premier English based college preparatory school within Taipei.  It's the most widely known, the one with the longest established history, the one with the largest student population (by far), the one with the best facilities, and the one that sends more students than any other English-based college preparatory school in Taiwan to tier one universities. --BenjaminTsai Talk 10:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

it is also the one creating the most social problems. A quick google search of "premier english language school in taipei" offers no mention of TAS. What gives? What evidence do you give that TAS is the premier english school in taiwan, or taipei?

What social problems? Any problems to the city of Taipei (however rare they may be) associated with TAS are most likely caused by TAS students during after-school hours. To relate this to the school itself is just trying to support a POV against TAS. By the way? What is NEHS? I currently attend TAS, and have never heard of NEHS...so how can it be considered greater than TAS if even TAS students haven't heard of it? -- Mattrixed Talk 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

underage sex and drug use, fake IDs, jacking scooters, fights, disrespect of taiwanese. matrix, you haven't heard of NEHS because you are a dumbass, not because NEHS is not greater than TAS. i am a TAS alumni and i have no reason to diss TAS unless there are really problems with it.


 * NEHS is the National Experimental High School set up in Hsinchu Science Park specifically for the children of people who work in the Science Park. There is a bilingual division within NEHS which offers an American curriculum, though they're quite small.  The graduating class this year is under 50 people as far as I can tell.  As for the social issues the anonymous person listed, we all know that this never happens at any local schools in Taiwan right? *rolls eye*  Finally, please refrain from ad hominem attacks. --BenjaminTsai Talk 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Benjamin for the NEHS info...I've been a TAS student for almost two years... never heard NEHS mentioned by anyone. As to what "anonymous" said, underage sex and drug use are found at every high school. To say this is TAS's problem is a joke. In fact, I'd say a very good portion of students are drug free and if they do engage in underage sex, they do so monogamously. Either way, that is not a problem of the school unless it takes place in the school or during school hours. Fake ID's are commonplace wherever you go, and TAS students are no more likely to steal a scooter than anyone else. Fights are extremely rare, and this disrespect of Taiwanese comment is ridiculous since over 90% of the school population is Taiwanese-American. Some may see local Taiwanese as inferior, but again, what on Earth does that have to do with the school itself? As to your calling me a dumbass...please try to avoid personal attacks. It only makes your side of the discussion look weaker. -- Mattrixed Talk 15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mattrixed not knowing anything about NEHS is a illustration of the typical TAS student problem. I'm TAS students are isolated and live in their own TAS bubble. Sure there is a PTA/food fair, and there is community service clubs...but thats how limited the interaction between the typical TAS student and the rest of Taiwan is. Just for your own information: http://web.nehs.hc.edu.tw/ is NEHS's website if you havnen't already looked it up.

first in position, rank, or importance.. which is very arguable in any of these cases. I suggest "well-known", rather than "premier". I don't agree with using "widely considered". To the Taiwanese public it can be easily argued that TAS students are "widely considered" as snobby, rich, spoiled. So what do does the author mean? "Widely considered" by who? The small international school community?
 * NEHS is relatively small compared to TAS, if you compare average SAT scores, NEHS students is consistantly higher than TAS by a significant margin. And the % of students going to prestigious schools far higher than that of TAS. I don't have official numbers to prove this, but I'm sure most who do know of people from NEHS, or are from NEHS can attest to this (class of 2002 in NEHS had an average of 1400+). If you're interested there is a pdf of their 2005 college matriculation on their homepage.  I'm not proving NEHS is better.. I'm saying it is not clear cut that TAS is the best, or 'widely considered as premier ....'. If there's any doubt if its premier, or even "considered premier" than it should not be in wikipedia. "Premier" can mean many things:


 * Back to the TAS students being in a bubble. This doesnt belongs in the wikipedia article but I would just like to mention some notables to Mattrixed. "Fake ID's are commonplace wherever you go"..this might be true in the international school community but far from true for the Taiwanese public. Look at the clubs on friday nights, there filled with underage TAS students. I remember seeing room18 packed with TAS students from 8th grade up to 12th grade. You'd never see any other club with this big proportion of underage students from the same school.


 * ..also Taiwanese-American and Taiwanese are totally totally different. TAS is in a bubble, for the vast majority TASers think differently and have a far different lifestyle than a Typical taiwanese student. I know a great number of Taiwanese-American students who been in TAS all their life and still do not identify, or relate at all as a "Taiwanese."

Typatigertot 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no firm basis for comparing the average graduating class SAT I scores between NEHS and TAS. TAS's annual report does not give the graduating class SAT I average, only the average for the entire school (as far as I can see).  I know many people take the SAT I before their senior year.. for instance I took the SAT I in 6th grade for admissions into the CTY program.  Though I did well enough to get into the program, I'm sure I pulled down that year's SAT I overall school average. :P  Now less I get accused of ignoring information, I've already written TAS requesting information about the graduating class SAT I average several days ago. --BenjaminTsai Talk 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the vast majority of locals have strict parents that impose curfews so that drugs, alcohol, underage sex are not a problem. TAS parents, on the other hand, yield to the pressure of a TAS communiy that indulges in drugs, alcohol, underage sex, clubbing. benjmain tsai, lol at a tiny # of middle schoolers pulling down the average. just admit it, TAS has lax academic standards. locals learn circuits in middle school and semiconductor physics in high school, have mandatory C or java courses in 10th grade, learn modular arithmitic, elementary number theory such as fermat's little theorem in middle school, college level linear algebra in high school. TAS is dragging down the standards of education in Taiwan.

NEHS bilingual department http://bilingual.nehs.hc.edu.tw/

TAS is so damaging to the taiwan community that it would be inappropriate to reference it as a "premier school" in an encyclopedia article. No one thinks TAS is good, except for members of the TAS community.


 * This has been rehashed before in the previous (and now archived) controversy discussion. --BenjaminTsai Talk 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

well just cuz only TAS students are participating in the discussion, of course they are going to make them look good. Where is the particpation of the greater Taiwanese community? THey don't read wikipedia. Of course its going to be biased in TAS's favor.


 * So I visited the NEHS website...Well, so it's not even an English-based School. It's just that the school has a bilingual department that offers American curriculum? Well, then it's way off from even being an English-based school to begin with... There's no need to compare NEHS and TAS. Ahhh, reading what the anonymous said, am I a byproduct of TAS education, too? :( LOL TAS bubble...

Janitors

 * Hello Janitor, janitor who says "Hello! 你好嗎?" to people.

WHy does my hello janitor keep getting deleted?!??!?


 * Not notable. Not sourced.  Not relevant to an encyclopedia.  Wikibofh(talk) 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

it is notable, ask TAS alumni, why are the good work of janitors being ignored?!??!?!


 * It is neither notable nor relevant. In fact, it's just some random sentence that borderlines on vandalism. --BenjaminTsai Talk 00:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

no, it is one of the most notable experiences i have ever had as a TAS student.


 * I presume you are intentionally ignoring the fact that you don't have a citation or that it is non-encyclopedic. Wikibofh(talk) 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

lots of material on the article doesnt have citation. I don't see how it is non-encyclopedic


 * I have requested mediation assistance on the janitor subject. Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-04_Taipei_American_School --BenjaminTsai Talk 11:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've quickly stepped in on this in order to bypass the general MEDCAB bureaucracy. I am your cabal mediator, I hope we can get this dispute sorted without having to resort to some lame edit war! :) The anonymous user's contribution is not vandalism, it is however unsourced and as such can be moved to the talk page by any editor pending citation. Presumably if this Janitor figure is notable enough for an article he would have been mentioned in some alumni publication?

The anonymous user is however correct. There are no citations for this article. The article should contain verifiable information and preferably be referenced with footnotes. I would encourage adding fact tags too sections which are unsourced and dubious.

From WP:CITE:


 * Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place citation needed after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many instances of citation needed is unlikely to be beneficial. The template citecheck can be useful for flagging quotations taken out of context and other misuse of citations.

I am not however the last word, anonymous user, if you feel that your edit conforms with Wikipedia policies, then please respond below quoting from the appropriate sections. Thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 20:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming by and providing sanity check. I agree we should have better sources for every article.  Just hope people don't gloss over the "...inserting many instances of citation needed is unlikely to be beneficial." portion of the policy.  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course! :) Its kind of pointless just to have an article full of those tags, but the best way to avoid that is to provide references. - FrancisTyers 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Per this discussion, I have removed the Hello Janitor portions, which are preserved here. I have also created the sources/references section, and put in the ref with a cite for a section.  Wikibofh(talk) 21:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Janitors are not mentioned in any alumni publications that I am aware of, and there is nothing particularly special about a janitor that says "Hello" to people.  The school is big enough to require a large group of hard working janitors to keep up the maintenance and provide the necessary services.  --BenjaminTsai Talk 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because janitors are not mentioned in any alumni publications doesnt mean they are not important. "Hello Janitor" is an important part of the TAS experience and he should be in the article 63.201.35.145 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

removing "non-profit"
Typatigertot 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? I browsed through a bunch of school articles, including many international schools, none of them include "non-profit" what makes TAS any different? TAS is a school, stating it as non-profit is just absurd.


 * Read below. Nice straw man though.  Wikibofh(talk) 03:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Typatigertot writes, "TAS is a school, stating it as non-profit is just absurd." A school is not, ipso facto, non-profit. Proprietary schools are common and are almost always for profit. BlueLED 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-profit
In answer to the newly created account from our anonymous friend, there are plenty of schools whose articles claim they are non-profits: Wikibofh(talk) 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The_International_School
 * The_Craig_School
 * Verona,_New_Jersey


 * I'm under the assumption u think i am the anonIP. I am NOT the anon IP, the only thing i share in common with this anon IP person is the idea that the TAS article does not honestly, objectively portray TAS. Unlike other major high schools in the US who claim to be top in academics, music, science, etc...whatever they claim to be, a school such as TAS does not have anyone other than alumni and current students to contribute. This is dangerous as the limited # of editors do not provide a round perspective. TAS people live in a bubble.....and can be quite ignorant as times when it comes to the self-perception of what one thinks TAS is. I just want to put an effort to keep the article balanced. I don't know if you know but TAS is in a crisis now:
 * Do you know why it was so hard to replace Mark Ulfers as superintendent? (i believe there was a whole year of an intern superintendent correct me if i'm wrong).....because all the ideal candidates (i believe there was 3~4) turned TAS down.. They didn't want to take over a school that had severe problems when it comes to pressure from the parents and board of directors regarding extreme expections.
 * ODMK69 mentioned about 20 faculty leaving after next year
 * WASC 2006 report...you will realize it is not taken out of context but it is the abstract/summary/intro whatever you want of teh report.
 * from a recent tas news feed:

Board Addresses WASC Self-Study Report

On Tuesday, March 28, nearly 200 parents and teachers attended a meeting of the TAS Board of Directors. The recent WASC Report was a priority item on the agenda. The board accepted the Administration’s Recommendations Addressing WASC Critical Areas for Follow-up. Those 11 areas are stated on page 37 of the WASC Self-Study Report, which is available to parents and faculty on the TAS Website. The recommendations of the Administrative Team will be shared with the community.

On March 24, parents and faculty were invited to submit questions and concerns that the board would address after the meeting. After the formal board meeting was adjourned, the board answered questions that were previously submitted by parents and faculty. Questions were taken from those in attendance. The questions and the answers to those questions will be made available to the entire TAS community, in some format, after Spring Break.

The dialogue between board, parents, faculty, and administration ended at nearly midnight. This meeting was an important beginning to open communication among all constituencies.

The April Communicator, which will address the WASC Self-Study Report, will be mailed to parents on Friday, March 31.

Patricia Wolfe Communications Officer

It is obvious that TAS is in a crisis, and this needs to be mentioned in the article. Typatigertot 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your claim that there was a whole year with an intern superintendent...you are wrong. As to your biased claim that TAS people live in a bubble, this has nothing to do with the article itself. And to all the claims that the Taiwanese public dislikes TAS, I'd have to say (from personal experience to downright common sense) that in general the Taiwanese public couldn't care less about TAS (they have no real opinion on it). TAS is not a cancer. It is not explicitly harming anyone. There have been times when it has been in the news, but the impression given by anonymous is that TAS is causing Taiwan harm. I am not an ardent supporter of TAS, nor someone who dislikes it, but honestly, with the possible exception of Columbine High School, how can anyone even suggest that a high school is having a prolonged negative affect on a community? It's just a school! -- Mattrixed Talk 07:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

lol at your personal experience. What do you know about the opinion of the Taiwanese public. You've been in taiwan for what.. 3 years.. lol TAS IS a cancer. It is a very large American institution in Taipei and because of the large American (which includes taiwanese americans) teeanage community, it is spreading negative social influences from America over to young Taiwanese people. You Americans when you come to a country, you should act like a guest and follow the social customs of the host country, eg no fake IDs or underage clubbing, no graffitti. No use of marijuana or E. Lol whats going to be next? spinning rims, pimp cups and grillz? 63.201.35.145 08:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder how anyone could think you are the same as the anonymous IP.
 * Your edit
 * Anon's edit
 * Wikibofh(talk) 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To anonymous - I never said that I was an American, and I've been in Taiwan for 5 years (attending TAS for 1.5 years). You said "What do you know about the opinion of the Taiwanese public" I say: What do you know? What makes your opinion worth putting in the article? Unless you can find a viable source that proves your opinion, you cannot put it in the article. That is what this discussion is about. I don't care if you like TAS or not, I'm just trying to keep a fair article that doesn't contain the opinion of one anonymous IP with a grudge. Please do not reply to me with your unfounded claims unless you can provide evidence for them (a link, perhaps?). -- Mattrixed Talk 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

dude, i am taiwanese and you are not 63.201.35.145 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that the anonymous IP 63.201.35.145 has made a personal attack against me on my own personal website outside of Wikipedia. There is no excuse for you to do this. What is Wikipedia's policy (if any) on attacks like these? -- Mattrixed Talk 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that is not acceptable. Send an admin the details and we can investigate and block if necessary.  Wikibofh(talk) 13:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

lol at not acceptable. lol at moderating other sites. wikipedia policy clearly forbids personal attacks only on wikipedia. what makes you think blocking me from wikipedia will protect mattrixed elsewhere? 63.201.35.145 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Never claimed I was going to moderate anywhere else, or even protect Mattrixed. It's not allowed, you've done it.  See you this time tomorrow.  Wikibofh(talk) 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I never asked anyone to help me with the situation on my site. I was just hoping that mentioning it would speed up the process of getting the anon blocked. -- Mattrixed Talk 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WASC report
Is the report available online somewhere? Wikibofh(talk) 21:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this WASC is only providing the following information on the school to the general public. --BenjaminTsai Talk 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So the controvery section needs to be removed? There is no source for it...indeed I am wondering where that "quoted paragraph" actually came from... -- Mattrixed Talk 07:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, just because they don't offer it online does not mean it isn't a valid source. We just need for it to be verifiable.  So, either a way to get a copy or someone needs to see about scanning it or portions of it in.  Wikibofh(talk) 13:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to get a copy through the TAS Alumni Office, though as mentioned elsewhere the school's closed for Spring Break until April 10th. --BenjaminTsai Talk 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While the report has been publicly released online to the TAS community, I don't believe the report is intended for the general public as it is linked from a page which is password protected. However, I can definitely verify that the information there is quoted accurately. Please note though that the text is from a section labelled "Opening Remarks by WASC Visiting Team Chair." I am not certain whether or not this is officially part of the report.

Accuracy aside, I'd like to question whether or not the quote alone provides the full picture (agreeing with the commenter who noted "Selectively quoting material out of context is not suitable for a reference work"). The report is 42 pages long and the quoted paragraph is not intended to be a summary of the report. As I noted above, the paragraph is from the Opening Remarks. For the sake of comparison, I am including some positive quotes from the Opening and Closing Remarks. I am deciding not to add any further quotes to the article for now until after we discuss it.
 * The paragraph immediately following the quote currently in the "Controversy" section states "From our conversations with various groups of school stakeholders and from our observations with classrooms, the Visiting Team does not believe that this conflict has, as yet, negatively impacted the education of TAS students." 
 * Addressing the "hard emotional labor" it will take to resolve issues within the school in the Closing Remarks, the Visiting Team Chair says "the Visiting Teams believes that there exists in all constituent stakeholder such passionate commitment to students and their learning and such strong loyalty to the school that this can be accomplished." 
 * Perhaps most notably, the Opening Remarks begin with "Taipei American School has a well-earned reputation for being a very good school. It has a reputation in the South East Asian region and worldwide for highly motivated students, a challenging curriculum, a very fine teaching faculty and some very pleasing external examination results." 


 * If you read the opening remarks, the above quotes are obviously just filler to make TAS feel better. The main point of the opening remarks is clearly the quoted section. 63.201.35.145 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that your stance that the "above quotes are obviously filler to make TAS feel better" is strongly opinionated and not necessarily accurate. As a matter of fact, I have not only read the opening remarks, I heard them delivered twice by the WASC Visiting Team Chair. Filler or not, I doubt the remarks would have been made if they were not accurate in the opinion of the Chair or the Visiting committee. (Waphle 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Furthermore, I think we may be running into a NPOV issue here. I don't know whether or not information should be posted when only one point of view can be provided. Those who point to the rest of the article as being unbalanced or an "advertisement" should note that most of the other information on the website is purely factual, rather than an opinion such as the one posted here. In this case - not only are we presenting the most negative excerpt from the report, we are not providing any sort of response from the school or other constituents.

It appears that many who are editing this page persist in attempting to portray TAS in a negative light.
 * For example one participant on this Talk Page says "For example did you know that over twenty faculty members, both teachers and other staff, are leaving TAS after this school year because they feel that they can no longer function in the current environment?" This statement is probably inaccurate because while there may very well be teachers who are leaving because they are uncomfortable with the current environment, assuming all staff leaving are leaving as a result of the environment is making a huge leap, especially given the fact that over a dozen teachers have left TAS every year in the past (not an unusual number for an international school). Furthermore, using a phrase such as "can no longer function" is perhaps a bit too extreme.


 * While I cannot speak for typatigertot, it is of my opinion that TAS faculty have always been dysfunctional retards; this phrase is not too extreme 63.201.35.145 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA. Enjoy your time off.  Wikibofh(talk) 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * how does thie violate NPA? i'm not insulting other wikipedia users.


 * You have been violating NPA on and off for the past 3 days. This is a quote of yours, on this very page from a few days ago: matrix, you haven't heard of NEHS because you are a dumbass, not because NEHS is not greater than TAS. You seem to be taking this out on me personally. Why the anger? It's just a difference of opinion. My opinion is that this article needs sources to prove it's accuracy for the controversy section. Until that proof is given, it should not be part of the article. -- Mattrixed Talk 06:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * lol you confused ignorance with greatness. the controversy is completely accurate


 * Also, statements such as "Do you know why it was so hard to replace Mark Ulfers as superintendent? (i believe there was a whole year of an intern superintendent correct me if i'm wrong).....because all the ideal candidates (i believe there was 3~4) turned TAS down.. They didn't want to take over a school that had severe problems when it comes to pressure from the parents and board of directors regarding extreme expections." are inaccurate as well. There was no interim superintendent between Mark E. Ulfers and the current superintendent. Furthermore, most superintendent candidates came to TAS wanting the job knowing what kind of school they would be entering. I am under the impression that some candidates were turned down by TAS (not necessarily the other way around) and that at least one candidate was offered another job and accepted before the candidate selection process was complete. If you have more direct factual sources that clearly indicate otherwise please let me know.

I am not clear as to why there are those who continue to push for negative viewpoints to be voiced in the article without contrasting positive viewpoints. The goal of any encyclopedia article cannot be to push a single viewpoint, or provide "contrary ideas" to those found on official websites (as ODMK69) suggests. Please take care to ensure that a NPOV is maintained. Those of you who say that the page is like an ad or is unbalanced - could you please provide examples from the page which you would consider as non-neutral? I would be happy to continue discussion.


 * I am satisfied with the current state of the article. But previous versions of articles such as "TAS is widely considered as the premier English language ..." are clearly non-neutral and incorrect. 63.201.35.145 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Shockingly, I agree with .145 on this. The only source is the taipei times article, which I don't find particularly compelling.  Wikibofh(talk) 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm onboard here as well. The removal of that claim was the right move. Hopefully the article can continue to remain neutral. Cheers (Waphle 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

For full disclosure, I would like to share that I am a senior attending TAS who has been actively involved in the school through many channels, including participating in the WASC accreditation process and the interview process for the new superintendent. I am aware of NEHS (as are many TAS students). I also have many resources at my disposal if there are any factual disputes which need to be settled. I recognize that I have, in general (but not always), a positive opinion of TAS, but fully intend not to put a positive spin on the TAS page.

(Waphle 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I would have to agree with Waphle. He probably knows more about this situation than any other current or past student of TAS, and possibly even knows more than some of the faculty. -- Mattrixed Talk 03:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! I look forward Waphle in sheding all the details surrounding the crisis at TAS. I hope Waphle will merely state facts and not let his role as a student government president and his personal relationships with TAS administration get in the way. For ur cooperation, keep including notables gosh! Forever Arewe Grateful! Typatigertot 05:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't claim do be able to shed light on all the details surrounding any situation at TAS, whether or not there is a crisis. I have made it clear that I will state only facts and will clearly point out if and when I am sharing my personal opinion. As I noted before, I recognize I may have a positive opinion of TAS in many regards, but I do not intend to put a positive spin on the article. It is for this reason I have refrained from editing this page as we continue the discusssion here. (Waphle 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

wikibofh, you can reach waphle at (number removed) to interview him 63.201.35.145 22:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't post someone elses personal information. Either use the email button for a user if you want it sent out of band or let them do it.  Wikibofh(talk) 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
There is a serious problem with NPOV with edits from anonymous hinet ips. These are obviously TAS students or people affiliated with TAS. This violates Wikipedia:Vanity and these edits should be reversed. 169.229.253.35 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits seem to be the most problematic. You're blanking large sections and reinserting stuff that has been shown to be clearly POV and not supported by it's sources (read through here for the details.  Oh, and for the record, to the best of my knowledge I do not know anyone who has ever been to TAS or is affiliated with TAS.  I have never been to Taiwan, much less Taipei.  Wikibofh(talk) 21:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The large sections are written by people who are affiliated with TAS and that violates vanity. The stuff i'm inserting is, on the other hand, NPOV. You have never been to TAS but you haven't written most of the information in this article. What makes TAS famous or notable enough to deserve such a long and detailed article? You surely haven't heard of it before... it is clearly vanity. 169.229.253.35 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One reason for the Wikipedia is so that people CAN read about things they don't know about. The length of an article is irrelevant and has no bearing on importance of the content or NPOV. I'm not sure why *.35 so dislikes TAS, but to help bring clarity and verification to this discussion, TAS publishes an annual report that covers many of the areas on the page. The previous three reports are on the TAS website at http://www.tas.edu.tw/about/welcome/report.asp. The 2006 report should be coming out towards the end of this school year. BlueLED 14:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Vanity
I think this entire article should be deleted, or condensed, because most of it is written by TAS students and alumni. The length of this article does not reflect the relative importance of this school. A encyclopedia article should not be written by those affiliated with the school. 136.152.170.134 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO guidelines does not apply to students of an learning institution. The important thing is to have an article that is properly referenced, and assertions made (good or bad) attributed to a reputable source. See WP:CITE and WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

why does it not apply to students of a learning institution? alumni of a school will try to make their school look good to build their resume!!! 136.152.170.134 00:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit and contribute to articles, providing they do so within the non-negotiable content policies of Wikipedia: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not, while maintaining civility. That is the real measure. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You've removed the entire history section and other sections that are NPOV and have sources. In addition you have introduced a grammar error. All with this edit. You have edited nothing here that wasn't directly related to TAS, but you claim that the other editors who have a lot of edits to a lot of other articles are only editing for selfish reasons, when their other edits show altruism. Wikibofh(talk) 00:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Edits of an article by a school do not fufill any requirement of WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO. Furthermore the problems with the controversy portions you are adding are specifially dealt with here.
 * TAS is a little known school world wide. It is preferably that those affliated with TAS do not contribute to the article, as stated in WP:VAIN. I doubt the general public is concerned about the number of libraries, and a list of different sports facilities and such at TAS. I also doubt that someone not affliated with TAS would consider the history of such a school to be worthy knowledge. The material in this article is clearly not encyclopedic. 63.201.35.145 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

those sections are written by people affiliated with TAS, its vanity. writing a long article for something that is clearly not important. 63.201.35.145 00:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is not paper and it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. The decision of what is important and what is not important is agreeed by editors' consensus. Please note that some behavior is considered disruptive and may result in blocking contributors from editing. See WP:BLOCK to gain an understading of Wikipedia's blocking policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If that were true WP:VAIN would not be a wikipedia policy. In this case, the editors are clearly affiliated with TAS. Their sources are also derived from people affiliated with TAS. The material in the article is not from a third-party neutral reporter. TAS students and alumni are simply using wikipedia as free advertising space. 63.201.35.145 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the policy, or is that just your opinion on what it should be? That being said, the fact that you continue to assert that it is vanity in spite of the fact that:
 * The policy doesn't cover it
 * No one else agrees with you
 * does not make it any more true. Wikibofh(talk) 03:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:VAIN is not a policy. It is a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the sections are clearly vanity and should be deleted. Nr9 05:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The article makes TAS seem much more important than really is. Check the articles for the other IASAS schools for reference. Keep in mind that SAS is much larger than TAS. Also see articles about international schools in other countries such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_School_of_Guangzhou Nr9 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure whether or not this page would be considered vanity under Wikipedia guidelines and I'll leave that up to you guys to decide, but I do think pages such as Taipei American School Student Organizations are over-the-top and should be discussed while we're at it. Furthermore, I think it is ironic that 63.201.35.145 would complain about those with affiliations with TAS editing the page when I know for a fact that he is affiliated with the school. In fact, he states that "i received my high school diploma from TAS and i spent 13 years at TAS." More often than not, it is his edits which create a lack of neutrality in the article (e.g. changing "continues to experience far higher demand for admissions than available seats" "to continues to lack resources to keep up with admissions demand"). (Waphle 07:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

His edit makes sense to me as "seats" does not make sense. Its not a music concert. Q1 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is clear that the problem with the edit is not the change of word choice in order to remove the use of the word "seats." The problem with the edit is that the phrase no longer merely talks about a high demand which TAS is not meeting, but it also makes a claim about why this demand is not being met. (Waphle 10:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

WASC Report
The following is a copy of the WASC Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TAS_Visiting_Committee_Report.pdf Q1 05:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether or not it is appropriate to be publishing this document as it was originally placed on a password-protected page. Furthermore it is irresponsible to release all rights to the document when the copyright is not yours to hold. (Waphle 07:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I don't see any copyright. It looks to me like there is no copyright on this document. WASC seems to be quite unprofessional actually, lol they use like Microsoft Word or something and can't even typeset their documents correctly Q1 07:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly we are not discussing the professionality of WASC or its ability to create professional looking documents. If you wish to make fun of their ability to typeset documents or their choice of software, this is not the place. Furthermore, while I may not be clear on the copyright or lack thereof on this document, it is clear that the copyright is not held by you and the rights are not for you to release. (Waphle 10:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC))


 * It was quite astute of Q1 to deduce that the WASC visiting committee "like use Microsoft Word or something," and he continues on to criticize, I assume, their formatting. Maybe he was expecting them to follow the Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White? For those who are not aware of the process, the WASC report is generated on-site during the visit, with each visiting committee member contributing. While the members do some prior writing based on reports the school has provided, much of the report is written and revised during the visit. Anybody who has had to produce authentic multi-author reports (as opposed to school or university assignments) under short deadlines and intense pressure understands the issue.


 * As for copyright, posting the WASC report is considered a copyright violation in the US, Taiwan, and most other countries. Q1 apparently subscribes to the fallacy that a document is public domain if it does not have a copyright notice. He needs to understand Title 17 of the US Code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html) or read his local country's version of IP law. BlueLED 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Local sentiment towards TAS
These articles represent local views of TAS:

http://db1.sinica.edu.tw/~textdb/test/921eq/txt/U0035/36553.txt http://gsrat.net/news/newsclipDetail.php?ncdata_id=526

http://www.ettoday.com/2005/03/16/91-1765428.htm

Nr9 07:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think the current article is representative of what TAS really is. If you go on the streets of Taipei and ask people of their opinion of TAS, they would say "It's full of rich, boisterous and non-studious kids", not "it has 9 computer labs". This kind of info is what propsective students coming from abroad should know. Nr9 08:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fair to say there are some (perhaps many, but I'm not sure) in the larger community who do not have a positive opinion of TAS. The articles you cite are an accurate representation of the media coverage provided to the specific incident that they address. However, I don't see how these opinions are more indicative of what kind of school TAS is than the opinions of those within the school community or the facts that are currently provided in the article. Encyclopedia articles do not typically include opinions, and when they do they provide opinions from all perspectives. Articles such as this one about the Hot dog include facts about its origins and different styles of preparation, but do not comment on who thinks hot dogs are tasty or not - even if its taste is more representative of what a hot dog is. (Waphle 10:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC))


 * True, the article hotdog does not include how people think of hotdogs as food. However, I must point out that taste is a subjective issue. Although I am not a fan of Nr9 (I think I know who he is), he does have a point. Nr9 provided articles that are from credible news sources and he should be allowed to include facts from recent news coverage. Your way of equating the two simply does not work and is illogical. I suspect you have personal feelings and biases towards this article, Waphle.


 * I have clearly stated that I do indeed have personal feelings and biases, as practically everyone else editing this article does. However, this is not defining my position on whether or not the information should be posted, and I have been happy to concede that there are those in the surrounding community with a negative impression of TAS. I just don't see how we can equate perspectives on TAS such as "It's full of rich, boisterous and non-studious kids" with facts. This is just as subjective as taste. The Columbine High School article is very carefully written to provide a neutral and almost completely factual version of the events, and does not include perspectives from others regarding the event or the school. If anyone has any facts that they propose adding, I'd be happy to discuss that.


 * "It's full of rich, boisterous and non-studious kids" -> I agree that this phrase is heavily subjective, but whoever deleted the whole controversy section and left WASC intact must know that he/she could have just deleted that phrase. While Nr9 hosts some heavy biases against TAS, I do believe he does speak some truth. If you disagree about that, you still cannot deny the newspaper articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.85.8.122 (talk • contribs) 02:01, April 11, 2006.


 * Furthermore, I noted I am not against the inclusion of perspectives, but that we need to be sure to include different perspectives. So far, it has been suggested that we include the Taiwanese perspective. If we are to do so, we must provide other perspectives (for example, WASC suggests TAS has a reputation for being a good school). Also, I'm not clear that we have enough information on the Taiwan/Taipei community's perspective on TAS (not just in response to a single issue/incident) to provide general statements about the perception of TAS. Once again, I am not advocating that we prevent perspectives from being included - I am merely reminding everyone that in order to ensure that there is a NPOV, multiple perspectives are covered and accurately sourced. (Waphle 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Therefore, I think you should respect our right to include controversies revolving around TAS and the surrounding community. You cannot simply say that since a person offers a perspective, you must invite more people to offer more perspectives to make the initial person's perspective valid. Wikipedia runs on the fact that people VOLUNTARILY write/rewrite articles. If people don't offer anything about "positive" perspectives of TAS, then, TOO BAD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.85.8.122 (talk • contribs) 02:01, April 11, 2006.

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School it says "The school is most notable for having endured the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and one teacher, and injured 24 others before commiting suicide" because this incident is widely covered in the news. Many Taiwanese also believe that TAS is most notable for theft and rape incidents. Why is this not acceptable in the article? Nr9 10:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a difference in how notable that incident is to the Columbine High School versus how notable mentioned incidents are to TAS. Not only were the acts committed at Columbine much more severe and defining, they were covered widely (as you note) by not only national press, but international press. In contrast, there is limited factual evidence about the general conception of the Taipei community, let alone the entire Taiwanese community, and still a lack of clarity on some incidents - specifically the incident in which statutory rape is alleged to have taken place. Furthermore, even if TAS is solely notable for the behavior of its students within the Taipei or Taiwan community, this conception is not universal. Evidence from WASC suggests that TAS has a reputation for other things. So not only do we need strong factual evidence that the opinion you suggest that the Taiwanese community holds of TAS is indeed the opinion they have and the only opinion they have, we also need to be able to provide information on the other perspectives that may be present. (Waphle 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Fake IDs and clubbing
http://bgonline.tas.edu.tw/article.asp?aid=319&iid=38&sud=44 Q1 08:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we have already established that there are some attending TAS who go clubbing or participate in other activities which may be illegal or frowned upon, but the debate about whether or not this belongs in a Wikipedia article remains. (Waphle 10:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Suggestion
I suggest that we add a "TAS and the surrounding community" page in the See Also section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.70.9 (talk • contribs) 13:28, April 9, 2006.


 * I don't think it's necessary to give that its own article. Any information that would be on that page could easily be summarized and placed on the TAS page. -- Mattrixed Talk 06:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I disagree with you, I don't see how all that can be "easily" summarized, considering we (I am a graduate of TAS) as a member of the Taipei community offended so many people so many times. The fact that the ROC government is at the mercy of the US government in terms of trade agreements and defense/arms deals prompts further suppression of TAS related "negative" news. I think if it is true, it is wikipedia worthy. And, just because it can be summarized does not mean that it must. Wikipedia is not a big jumbo of summary by the way.


 * I do agree that information does not necessarily need to be summarized. But I'm not sure whether or not we want to separate that content onto a second page - are there benefits to be gained from that? I think if information about TAS community members offending the surrounding community members is important and pertinent, it belongs on the main article. I suppose either way sounds fine to me - we just need to hash out what should be included regarding TAS, its surrounding community, and its reputation. (Waphle 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Summarization or none, I still don't feel that an article titled Controversies at Taipei American School (or something similar) is warranted. Indeed the whole concept of such an article is POV; since most people don't consider secondary education and controversy to mix very often. Incidents at TAS are rare (more rare than say inner-city high school violence in the US), and I'm not sure exactly how TAS is responsible for what the anons seem to be saying, which is that TAS "offended so many people so many times." Unless someone can write the article so that it does not seem like TAS is a menace to society (which the anons seem to be implying), this is not a NPOV idea... -- Mattrixed Talk 11:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that such an article is POV, as long as newspaper articles or respectable sources could be used to justify that TAS has a poor relationship with the surrounding community, I fail to see how that is POV. And we are talking about TAS in the Taipei community, not TAS in the US. TAS should abide by the cultural customs of Taipei. I think you are the one having unjustified POV. Also, I hope you are not the admin, because from how I looking at this, you are heavily biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.85.8.122 (talk • contribs) 01:54, April 11, 2006.


 * Your statement saying "TAS should abide by the cultural customs of Taipei" is POV, and is also not the concern of a TAS article on Wikipedia. Who is to say that TAS should do anything? I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but finding sources which cater to your opinion but not the other is truth by selection, and thus POV. You also said in an above post, "If people don't offer anything about "positive" perspectives of TAS, then, TOO BAD." Are you claiming that you only want to edit this article to suit your own opinion? I don't know if that's what you're trying to do, but that is what it sounds like. Either way, if such a section is included, why not in the TAS article? You said: Also, I hope you are not the admin, because from how I looking at this, you are heavily biased. Do you realize the irony in this statement? You pretty much said that it is your biased opinion that I am biased. You're right. I am biased. But what I'm trying to do here is maintain a NPOV article. Oh, and I'm not an admin. -- Mattrixed Talk 09:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "TAS should abide by the cultural customs of Taipei" is not POV, since Taipei is where TAS resides, and as an educational institution that ferments positive cultural values for better communal integration, TAS should observe some cultural differences and values being an american institution.
 * "If people don't offer anything about "positive" perspectives of TAS, then, TOO BAD." -> Yes, I am editing the article to suit the needs of the majority (note, I am just inserting events that REALLY happened in the past), if the majority deems it as unfit, they can choose to delete my part of the edition. (Rather by the selective few who decides to "protect" the article)
 * Please note the word "heavily" you are heavily biased rather than biased. You are a true pain in the rear, not just a pain.


 * Did you even read what I wrote? I said I agreed with you that TAS should abide by cultural customs. My point was that what TAS should or should not do is not information that should be included in an encyclopedia. And please: No personal attacks. -- Mattrixed Talk 08:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I did read what you wrote. And no, I think anything that is true is wikipedia worthy, did you read what I wrote? And yes, at this point you are a true pain in the _. And since you are not an admin, I don't care about what you say and what you do, because you are just one of those internet hippies on wikipedia. Your words just carry no weight. By the way, how old are you?


 * I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Oh, and please sign your posts on talk pages. -- Mattrixed Talk 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)