User talk:TCT WIKIEDITS

Welcome!
Hello, TCT WIKIEDITS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Civility
Please remember to assume good faith. Your summary with this edit implied that the edit was done in bad faith. However, it's very rare for elementary schools to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia article, as per Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. You may not agree with the edit, but it was reasonable under those guidelines. Please comment on edits, and not editors. If you would like to discuss the issue further, consider Talk:Niji-Iro Japanese Immersion Elementary School. Also, since your only edits are related to those two schools, you may find it useful to review Conflict of interest. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Grayfell: Please correct me if I am putting this comment in the wrong place. Nijiiro is one school in a larger school district, and as such might not be notable, but its district (Livonia Public Schools/LPS) is, and has long had an entry. The other school, Hinoki, like LPS, is also its own district, as a public charter. Therefore, If LPS is suitable as a page, then Hinoki is as well. A Niji-Iro entry might not be needed, but both schools are notable insofar that there are only a handful (fewer than 6 in USA, as far as I know) of schools that offer Japanese-English bilingual immersion, and are the subject of educational research in the US and Japan. Finally, the edits I "undid" I had to undo (as far as I could figure), to get to the one edit that was clearly incorrect: the one that redirected Hinoki to LPS wiki page. Hinoki has no relationship with LPS (although it did once), and is a self-standing organization. It would be wrong to imply otherwise. My comment that implied bad faith referred to this. Were it possible to just correct the redirect (maybe it is), I would have just done that. (Maybe it is possible - I am not a wiki professional). I appreciate your neutral position, past edits, and guidance. It is not my intent to editorialize, but total deletion (in essence) of these unique programs from Wikipedia would constitute a loss of information useful to the general public. TCT WIKIEDITS (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I mainly wanted to underscore that calling another editors actions 'malicious' was setting a bad precedent, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I don't think your edits were inappropriate, but it's important to keep perspective. Some of this was already discussed on Talk:Hinoki International School, and what came up was that the main reason both schools are notable enough for articles is because of the controversy (for lack of a better word) between them. The only reason there are reliable, secondary sources talking about the schools, outside of routine listings, is because of that controversy. Since most sources talk about the two schools together, merging the articles, or redirecting one to the other is far from malicious, although I don't think it's how I would approach the situation.

Claiming that the school is its own district as a rational for preserving the article is dubious. Not every charter school is automatically notable because it is administratively considered to be its own district. The reason districts are notable is largely because they apply to a larger community than just one school. The inherent notability of schools has been extensively debated on Wikipedia in the past, and will likely be debated more in the future. Without dredging-up old Wikipedia politics, it's helpful to know that elementary schools do not get the same benefit of the doubt that high schools or school districts do. What is usually comes down to is how noteworthy the school is to the larger community. If outside sources imply such significance, then it's notable enough for an article.Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Greyfell: Your point is well taken on how the edit was categorized as "malicious." I cannot say for sure that the editor had ill will, and in the future I will follow your advice to just address the appropriateness of the edit, without assigning motivations. However, as you note, there is some controversy, and the same editor who installed the redirect made other unrelated changes to the destination page (LPS School District), making it possible that the editor knows the school district and may have acted with political motivation. The articles were not redirected to each other: they were redirected to a single location. That location might be appropriate for the school that belongs to that district (Niji-Iro), but for Hinoki it is as appropriate as redirecting to just about any other unrelated page on Wikipedia. The fact that Hinoki is its own school district might be a dubious rationale for notability, but it is not the strongest argument. The strongest argument is the uniqueness of the two programs, and their importance to the Japanese community in the area. Without going into local details, both programs are central social hubs, and have plans to grow through high school. Wikipedia culture may have evolved to consider elementary schools unworthy of inclusion as a general rule, but that does not change the fact that Hinoki and Niji-Iro are at least as important to the local Japanese society as many other Japanese groups/organizations that are permitted to exist on Wikipedia. If even under these circumstances they are not "notable," even without the controversy rationale, it would lead to the loss of valuable information to not only the community, but also future researchers of bilingual education, etc. It would actually be more unfortunate if the redirect was not politically motivated, and instead just routine maintenance with a blunt tool ("no elementary schools"), thereby diminishing the richness of Wikipedia. TCT WIKIEDITS (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Hinoki International School was redirected to Livonia, Michigan, not LPS. A glance at the history of those articles shows that the editor hasn't edited LPS or Livonia. This is why I say that your accusations show a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia. That's fine, but please hold off on the mud-slinging until you have a better grasp of how the project works.

If the status of an article is challenged again, the best place to discuss it is the article's talk page. The future plans of the schools are largely irrelevant for notability, at least without reliable, secondary sources commenting on them. That's true for all claims, actually. Notability is determined by sources. Strictly as a practical matter, high schools and school districts are generally held to slightly lower standards of sourcing than most other article types, (Notability (high schools) explains this, if you're curious). Elementary schools are not automatically considered less worthy of articles, it's just that they need to be as well-sourced as any other article about an organization or business. All Wikipedia articles should reflect what reliable sources have to say about the subject. If these schools are social hubs, sources need to be included to reflect that, otherwise it is not verifiable, and can be removed as promotional content. Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Greyfell: Fair enough. I will be more careful. I based my understanding of the edits on what was said by the person I called to clarify what happened to the site, and assumed to be more knowledgeable of Internet matters than I am. And, I conflated LPS with Livonia by similarly not checking carefully. In any case, Hinoki is an independent organization that has no relationship to either LPS or Livonia (it is located in a different city), and the redirect was still inappropriate on that basis.

As for being social hubs, and the future plans of the schools, those are not sourced as you say, but nor are those claims on the page. It seemed appropriate to share with you why I personally feel the pages are valuable to the public, even if the reasons have not been published somewhere, and thereby elevated to "true and verifiable." At the same time, I admit my ignorance of Wikipedia, but do see many types of information posted that do not have clear citations, or any at all, and are flagged as such so that readers can judge for themselves, and weigh in until reaching a balance. This public vetting is a type of verification too, and it seems unlikely that all information that is useful to the public must first be the subject of news articles or other published works. In fact, in some cases a nucleus article might be just the thing required to attract various experts who can flesh it out with sources. This is just an observation, and not intended to challenge the rules of the Wikipedia community (I do understand the reasons).

Finally, if the issue arises again, the best approach might be to create a page on the Hinoki International School District (currently a district of one school), just as there is a page on the Livonia School District (a district of many schools), and move the information there, to discourage the loss of information useful to the local community based on even well-intentioned application of the notability principle with respect to elementary schools.

Thank you for taking the time to write - I recently read an editorial that said Wikipedia was having difficulty attracting new editors, in part due to harsh veterans using arcane rules to bludgeon novices. I have made minor corrections from time to time over the years, but only recently created an account. I appreciate that your guidance has been fair and constructive - demonstrating the principles you advocate. TCT WIKIEDITS (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I can be of help. I find it difficult to know where the line is between preserving the project I love so much, and encouraging new editors who are just as confused as I was when I started. It seems like you've got it exactly. As you say, it's useful to have some degree of unsourced info in an article (unless it's a WP:BLP) to build interest, and also to provide context which can be used to find sources. Without sources, however, that content must be thought of as temporary. Usefulness is very often used as an argument for preserving content, so often that it has its own shortcut, in fact: WP:ITSUSEFUL. Obviously, agreeing on what is and is not useful is the difficult part. Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)