| Revision as of 21:48, 26 May 2006 editJohn Broughton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,691 edits Multiple identities?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:06, 19 September 2024 edit undoSheriffIsInTown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,607 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| (54 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
== "Loading" the article == |
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
I am so strongly against social promotion that I suspect I am "loading" the article to reflect my bias. Please help. --] 19:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1date=16:44, 15 June 2006 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Social promotion/archive2 |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=58045018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
== May 2006 reversion == |
|
|
|
|action2date=16:58, 25 July 2006 |
|
] - I significantly revised the article, including extensive use of one of the sources already listed in the article (ERIC digest). You reverted it without any further explanation. I would hope that my changes added SOME value to the article; if you think parts are wrong, please change those, rather than discarding everything. |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Social promotion/archive3 |
|
|
|action2result=not promoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=64856092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=PR |
|
I'm going to put the page back the way it was; please either make CHANGES to it (explanations in the edit summary are appreciated and reduce misunderstandings) or post something HERE about why you think that everything I did is wrong. Thanks. ] 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=03:41, 2 August 2006 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Social promotion/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=reviewed |
|
|
|action3oldid=65985945 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
:Oahc - thank you for posting a note to my talk/discussion page. However, you shouldn't have reverted the article. I've explained (on your talk/discussion page) what I did to improve the article, and why it's not an either/or ("Your" version/"my" version) choice. I'm going to revert the article back to the last version I edited. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|
:Please note that you have reverted the article twice already; doing so again would violate the ]. ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Education|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=SheriffIsInTown|date=19 September 2024}} |
|
----------- |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive basics|counter=2}} |
|
:: Hmm - seems to be problems posting to your talk/discussion page. I'm going to put the text here. |
|
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|
'''Oahc''' - you asked ''What is wrong with the social promotion article that I wrote? I wrote all the sides to it. I don't understand..Don't you agree with what I wrote?'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think those are the right questions. An article isn't finished when all the sides are presented. Nor should someone not edit an article because he/she agrees with what it says. |
|
|
|
|
|
If I had SHORTENED the article, then I could see an argument being made that the version that you last edited might be better, and a simple revert is appropriate. But that isn't the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
(As I remember - I didn't take notes -) I didn't ignore what was in the article (which had a dozen other editors, so I'm not sure why your refer to it as "your" article). Rather, I used the existing article as a starting point. I added a lot of text that I thought wasn't in the article, or was better written, and then removed text that I thought weren't necessary, either because I'd found better wording elsewhere or because it was redundant to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
|
In particular, I tried to emphasize in the article that there are numerous STUDIES out there that provide hard facts about social promotion, and thus the debate should NOT be one of "common sense". (I didn't say that in so many words; that would be editorializing.) I also added what I thought was clearly a new argument - that while social promotion clearly has problems, retention may well (in many cases) have MORE problems, and that money could be better spent elsewise than on keeping students back. And I provided additional references as well as additional information. |
|
|
|
|
|
At this point, you might want to do the following: |
|
|
* Look at the existing article and see if it has redundant/duplicated information, or information that you consider trivial. If so, shorten it, and so comment in the edit summary. Also, where the wording or grammar is poor, or sentences or paragraphs are illogical, fix those. |
|
|
* Look at the version that you last edited, and identify the half-dozen (or dozen or whatever) major points that you think should be made. Check the existing article to make sure they are in the article. For each point, decide whether the wording in the existing article is best, or could be improved. (Alternatively, print out the version you last edited, and go through it, checking off the points that should be made.) Where the last version you edited was superior, make changes to the existing article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hope this helps. Thanks for posting the note to my talk/discussion page. ] 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Content deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that an anonymous editor recently removed quite a bit of content, apparently believing that a shorter article is better. This deletion removed a great deal of information about the history of social promotion, studies about it, and more. This information should definitely be added back, as shorter but less comprehensive is definitely ''not'' better. This looks like a textbook case of the ]. If the content was unclear, then it should have been clarified rather than deleted. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would add this information back myself, but I have not been involved in editing this article so I'm not terribly familiar with it. Someone who is more familiar with it will be better able to ensure that all useful information is kept. --] 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Icarus - I appreciate your taking the time to post a comment, and particularly your citing a relevant wikipedia article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I thought that Oahc and I had reached a reasonable compromise on this, and I'm going to revert the article to a previous version. ] 11:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edits by Xtremeruna21 == |
|
|
Xtremeruna21 - I briefly looked through your edits; I'm not going to go through and decide what to keep and what to discard (see below as to why), so I reverted them in their entirety. If you do want to make edits, please consider the following: |
|
|
* Since retention and social promotion are exactly opposites, the sections on "positive results of retention" and "negative results of social promotion" are essentially the same thing and, if you look at the wording, there is considerable overlap (not surprising). The point of two sections is? |
|
|
* The "negative results of social promotion" are not prefaced with "critics argue" or anything that indicates that these "results" are in fact ARGUMENTS. |
|
|
* The "sends a message to all schoolchildren" argument is STUPID. Six-year olds don't decide NOT to learn; six-year olds aren't mature enough to have long-term reasoning. |
|
|
* The sentence "The law clearly states that a child can legally remain in high school until they are 21" is, on its face, BOGUS. Laws on education are done at the STATE level, not at the federal level. I sincerely doubt that you can produce a source that says that EVERY state in the U.S. allows individuals (if they want?) to stay in high school until age 21. |
|
|
*The sentence "Since social promotion doesn't exist at the high school level, students have no choice but to attend summer school in order to try and graduate on time or repeat that grade" is also BOGUS. If you'd read the article, you'd have seen that various cities have changed the policies on social promotion; if you know of a LAW (at the federal level) that FORBIDS social promotion in any state in the U.S., then produce it for the article. Otherwise, stop making things up. (Also, for what it's worth, not all school districts offer summer school; that also is something NOT required by federal law - and again, I invite you to provide evidence that EVERY high school in the country has such a program, if you believe that.) |
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You should look at all the edits before your revert. Not briefly. (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: See below. ] 21:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Who says you can change things? I'm a wikipedian...and I have a right to...You don't have knowledge of it....I've done research...and all you do is reject it..it makes sense too. And I'm putting it back...you already violated the 3 revert rule. (])'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Xtremeruna21: Here's a homework assignment: actually READ the three-revert rule, then come back here and explain why I didn't violate it. (Alternatively: agree that if I show you that I didn't violate the rule, you'll stop editing this page - take that as a challenge?) |
|
|
::::Second, if you've done research, then CITE SOMETHING. You added NO references or external links; were the ones in the article ALL that you used for your edits? |
|
|
::::Third, I've pointed out specific errors (see above). Are you going to refute those? As a wikipedian, you're supposed to work with other editors to improve the article as a whole, not to get into fights about whose version is better. Failure to respond to specifics isn't going to help your case. |
|
|
::::I'd be happy to ask an administrator to get involved, if that will get some cooperative behavior. ] 21:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Multiple identities? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Xtremeruna21: you posted this in your edit summary: ''why can't you ever think my side? This article is supposed to be neutral!'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Have you posted under some other name, or under an IP address? Your edit summary ("ever") seems to imply that I've reverted your edits more than once; if so, they were under multiple names. What might those be? ] 21:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
