Talk:Newton Public Schools

November 29 conversation starts here

John from Idegon, in just the past hour you have again deleted my posts on the talk page and also deleted an entire section of the Newton Public Schools Wikipedia page. This is the very definition of an edit war. Prior to what has claimed, the issues regarding class material and retaliation are under investigation by the federal government right now. Of course, no one else who views this page knows this because you continue to delete everything I write as soon as I write it.

The "Controversies" section has been part of this article for months, and you didn't object to it. Why do you now delete it?

You also appear to have deleted the History of the article after July, 2015. I have no doubt that it can easily be shown that there were a number of edits to the article after that time, including some which I made less than two hours ago and you deleted. This is beyond inappropriate.

As stated below, this is NOT a local issue or a bygone issue but has received publicity in both national and international news sources. The issue has been the subject of a completed state investigation and ruling, and there is an ongoing federal investigation as well. This is extremely unusual for any school district and deserves mention. It has been brought up repeatedly at School Committee meetings and several nationally-known groups have commented on the issue (one issued a "Call to Action" to its members). I am re-posting what you deleted. Please do not continue to delete my posts and edits. SurfRI (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Posted an hour ago:

You are incorrect, bullying and appear to have extreme bias and possibly personal and/or political motivations for your actions

YOU appear to be engaging in an edit war to keep out information which has been the subject of articles throughout the United States and overseas. Here are just a few examples from blogs which reach readers throughout the U.S. (i.e. Atlas Shrugged, anti-semitism.net) as well as overseas:

Articles Directly Relating to the Retaliation: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2015/01/school-retaliates-against-student-for.html https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/massachussetts-school-retaliates-against-student-for-parents-opposition-to/ http://www.anti-semitism.net/?s=%22Parents+for+Excellence%22 http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/massachusetts-school-retaliates-against-student-for-parents-opposition-to-pro-islam-anti-israel-propaganda.html/

There are also dozens of articles written about the successful effort by the parents of the student who was retaliated against to remove inaccurate and biased class material. The bias of these materials has been the subject of articles and reports from major Jewish, education, and media organizations including the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), Jewish Telegraph Agency, Fordham Foundation, Textbook League, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Verity Educate (which published a 153-page report on the matter), etc.

You may not consider the ADL, CAMERA, Fordham Foundation (a major education policy leader), the AJC, or similar organizations to be "important", but that's just one person's opinion. Literally millions of others disagree.

There are currently two local organizations addressing the textbook and retaliation controversies, as well as the national organizations mentioned above. This is hardly an issue that has been 'scarcely mentioned outside of the local area'.

The fact that school officials have broken the law to retaliate against a high school student for his/her parent's objection to inappropriate class materials (which in fact the Superintendent agreed with, as the material was later removed) is just as relevant, or even more so, than a superintendent's plagiarism or the violation of open meeting laws. It is directly related to the Textbook Controversy which you accept is a legitimate part of the article.

Neither a a superintendent's plagiarism or the violation of open meeting laws have any direct effect on students. Retaliation against a student, however, has major repercussions on both the student and the school community as a whole. Certainly it is just as worthy, if not more so, for inclusion in this article.

As well, your tone is inappropriately hostile and bullying: "Nuff said?" "will be dealt with" are attempts to belittle and threaten which are inappropriate in editing a Wikipedia article. The inaccurate and false claims that I am engaging in an edit war, when you have reverted numerous edits wholesale without any attempt to explain your reasoning, is inverting the facts. The same is true of previous edits which were being reverted while I was still in the process of editing. It is obvious that your edits are not being made in good faith as you have made no attempt at all to engage with me other than threats.

The Retaliation issue has been considered and adjudicated by a state agency, and two federal agencies are also investigating the matter. Being the subject of a federal investigation is hardly a trivial matter. I did not include that fact in the article because I believed that doing so before a judgement was reached would be prejudicial; however since you apparently need 'proof' that the issue is an important one, I will include it in my next edit to make you happy.

Additional articles regarding events related to the Retaliation (a limited number, as I don't want to spend all night copying URLs):

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/187870 http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-newton-public-schools-pro.html http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2014/6/13/anti-israel-text-remained-in-schools-longer-than-officials-let-on-research-shows http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_email.cfm/blog_id/52473/Boston-Jewish-Leadership-caught-in-deception-over-Newton-Schools-disputed-texts http://www.heritagefl.com/story/2013/04/19/news/adl-downplays-controversy-over-anti-israel-texts-in-curriculum-of-newton-mass/562.html

Without even looking at the articles, I can recall that the issue has been addressed in newspapers in Florida, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Israel (and I believe in California and Colorado as well, though I'd have to double-check) as well as nationwide media sources. Is this 'un-local' enough? SurfRI (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I added a header where you started talking above. Putting a header in the middle of your post is confusing.

Second, no one "erased" your talk page comments. The last edit prior to yours was in June. No it was not; there were numerous edits in October and early November. I have screenshots showing this. You certainly did erase comments and history, it was easy to tell when I returned after being away from the computer for a time. That's why I took screenshots - I knew you would deny it.

• Wikipedia History page before deletions
  Wikipedia History page before deletions
• Wikipedia History page before deletions scrolled down
  Wikipedia History page before deletions scrolled down
• Wikipedia History page before deletions scrolled down 2
  Wikipedia History page before deletions scrolled down 2

Third, you were warned above about casting dispersions on other editors motivations above. I am promising you that if it happens again, you will find yourself defending yourself at a noticeboard.

Fourth, the clear consensus from the prior discussion was to eliminate the controversies section. That is what I have done.

That's not the case at all. If you look above at SQGibbon's comments on 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC), when I discussed her removal of some important facts in the Controversies section, her response was: "Great! Then that's content that can be modified. I fully admit that I didn't research the issue to its fullest extent but based on the smaller edit I made it's easy to fix the content. So let's fix it!". She obviously believed that the section would and should remain in the article, and in fact it DID remain in the article for months until you removed it a few hours ago.

SQGibbon's comments when I told her that her edits had removed important factual information: "If there are important facts that need to be addressed to make my edit more accurate then let's do it." Again, she obviously agreed that the Controversies section would remain as part of the article and that she and/or I would fix the inaccurate edits. Again, the fixed edits and Controversies section remained as part of the article for over five months, until you removed it a few hours ago.

Fifth, you were advised to come to an understanding of what kind of sourcing is required here. You are still referencing blogs.

Lastly, please lose the chip on your shoulder. No one is persecuting you here. And please be more sussicint. No one has time to read all your verbiage. This is a volunteer endevour. Pinging JonRidinger and SQGibbon. John from Idegon (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all; see above. You are acting in bad faith by deleting my posts here as well as reverting every change I have made without citing any reason. With respect to when edits were last made, I have a screenshot of when edits were made, and the latest edits were not made in July but in the last two days. YOU are engaging an an edit war and exhibiting deception and bad faith through your actions. You are also being personally insulting. Clearly you are not interested in discussing or resolving the matter; you are interested primarily in 'winning' and attempting to make me upset.

The blogs I referenced are considered reliable sources by third parties. The Elder of Ziyon blog is cited by news writers and columnists in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Jewish Press, Der Algemeiner, Washington Times, Israel YaYom, and CNN. Please do your research before making unfounded pronouncements.

With respect to living persons, i.e. School Committee Chair Matthew Hills (the only person, living or not, referenced in my edits) the source was a legal opinion. When an entity legally authorized to issue opinions and statements of fact on behalf of the government rules that an individual has engaged in illegal retaliatory behavior and no appeal is made, the behavior it is no longer a contested issue but a legal fact. What I wrote was exactly that - that the DESE had found that Hills acted illegally. The fact that someone may not like the ruling doesn't mean it's not valid and binding.

Also, stop leaving messages on my Talk page as I do not want to hear from you except in a public setting. I have asked for dispute resolution in this matter and welcome assistance to remove your bad faith and bullying. SurfRI (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The comments I made back in June still stand. Most of the controversies received very little attention and the little attention they did receive outside the immediate area was not sustained. Notability has two parts: not only does it receive coverage in multiple publications outside the immediate area, but also receives coverage for more than just a short period of time, such as one article. Basically, if I went to a search engine and searched for these topics, I should be able to find multiple articles from various reliable news agencies over a period of time, not just right when it happened.

Another issue is some of the sources do not meet WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable sources, nor are special interest websites. Special interest websites are, by their very nature, biased, so they fail Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. This applies to the Clarion Project source, Verity Educate, NewtonExcellence (the link goes to a document on Google Drive), and Parents for Excellence in Newton Schools. That's not to say the sources are wrong or that I disagree with the sources, but they are not neutral and thus cannot be considered when writing a neutral article, nor do they confirm a topic's notability. The rest of the sources are largely local sources. The Boston Globe is regional, but doesn't, in itself, confirm notability since Newton is well within the regional coverage area of the Globe. On top of that, there is currently one article from the Globe, so at this point, was just part of routine coverage.

As I said in June, these controversies can be included in the article, but should be part of a larger History section. Having them as a stand-alone section, especially when the article has almost no other information in it, gives them undue weight and appears to be some kind of WP:SOAPBOX. The accusations here in the talk make it seem even more like a case of "soapboxing".

Also, please review the article guidelines for school articles as well as WP:EL for which external links should be included. For school district articles, that tends to be the official website of the district. Websites for related programs or parent groups aren't appropriate for the article. The subject of the article is the school district, not every detail about it. These are the standards and guidelines that editors like I, SQGibbon, and John from Idegon are basing our opinions from. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus that was achieved was that if we keep the section then it needs to be short and well-sourced. This consensus was achieved according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and stands. I'm going to revert to the consensus that was achieved until such time that a new consensus is achieved. And for the record, I'm not convinced that these "controversies" deserve mention in this article but if they are kept they need to be concise (two sentences) and presented from a neutral point of view. SQGibbon (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO, we have WP:BLP1E issues here. I can support the current content as long as we remove the names. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

SueQGibbon, your understanding of the controversy is incorrect, probably because (as you admit) you "fully admit that I didn't research the issue to its fullest extent" and acknowledge as well that you may be are unaware of "important facts that need to be addressed".

If you spent ten minutes researching the issue, which you admit you know little about, you would realize that your assumptions are wrong. Try doing an internet search for " "Newton Public Schools" and "Arab World Studies Notebook" " (Arab World Studies Notebook is the name of the supplemental text which first brought the issue to public attention). You will find numerous articles, some from arguably non-authoritative sources but others from mainstream media such as JointMedia News Service (from 2013), the Jewish Ledger (from 2014), Jewish Forward (2013), Jewish Journal, Boston Globe (2013), Israel National News (2014), Times of Israel (2015), as well as the local newspapers which addressed the issue in 2011-2012 and are cited below and in the article itself.

An issue which has been the subject of news reports in two countries; state and federal investigations; and reports from large, well-respected and oft-quoted academic, media and community organizations (i.e. Fordham Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Telegraph Agency, CAMERA) over a period of five years, including the current year, is NOT "something that took place four years ago" (claim by John from Idegon) or "what amounted to a few students and families protesting a small amount of content in one textbook" (claimed by SueQGibbons). (The issue concerns much more than a single text, see below).

The consensus needs to be ACCURATE as well as short. Accordingly, the word "anti-semitic" in the "Textbook" section needs to be replaced with "anti-Israel". No one alleged that the material was anti-semitic. There are numerous sources which support this. Here are two examples from articles published in newspapers in different countries and different years:

Although the material was supposed to be removed in 2012, and school administrators said it was removed in 2012, it was not:

As you can see, the three articles above - which are all on the same topic - were published in 2011, 2012, and 2014 (there are also articles published this year). This shows that the controversy over class materials (a more accurate description than "Textbook Controversy") has been ongoing for a period of at least four years. This directly contradicts your claim that the issue only received news coverage for "just a short period of time".

As stated, the issue does NOT involve a single text, which both of you keep repeating and which is patently untrue. A sentence which was deleted numerous times concerned a 153-page report by the educational research organization Verity Educate (which is not affiliated with any other organizations and promotes a neutral and factual approach to textbook issues) which found that sixteen out of the twenty-five items of class material it reviewed were biased, inaccurate and in some cases deceptively edited 'primary sources'.

It's ludicrous to state that the controversy needs to be covered by the New York Times or similar multinational media entity to be relevant and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia articles "Romani people" and related articles detailing 'minor' (to non-Romani) issues such as the "Great Gypsy Roundup" Wikipedia article. None of them cite large multinational newspapers as a source, in fact the "Great Gypsy Roundup" article doesn't cite ANY references, yet I don't see you or John from Idegon complaining about these or the hundreds of thousands of similar articles.

The reason the "Controversies" section (a more accurate title than "History", although if you'd like to write a section on the "History of the Newton Public Schools", go right ahead) should be in the "Newton Public Schools" section rather than elsewhere is because to date the entire controversy (including the issue around the Arab World Studies Notebook, which was active between 2011 and 2014, as well as more recent issues such as the Verity Educate report, which was published in September 2014) are specific to the Newton Public Schools. Other than the removal of the Arab World Studies Notebook from the Anchorage school district ten or fifteen years ago, they have not come up in other school districts. So it doesn't make sense to split off a controversy that exists ONLY with respect to the Newton Public Schools into an entirely separate article.

There is also no rule that an article about a school district or other government entity can only include the names of buildings and the names of officials. Wikipedia articles about other government entities routinely discuss controversial issues. A public school district is a branch of city government. It is not a holy temple immune from controversial decision, officials who make poor and sometimes illegal judgement calls, or any other aspect of modern political organizations (which is exactly what a school district is, whether you acknowledge it or not).

Do you really think that the fact that these controversies - which again, have been going on for five years - should not be included in an article about the entity where the controversies exist?

The issues surrounding the Newton Public Schools are unprecedented, at least in the state where the school district is. Has anyone reading this ever heard of a situation where a school administrators has been found to have retaliated against a student? As far as I can tell, this has NEVER occurred anywhere in the U.S. That itself is noteworthy and deserving of space. Nor have I ever heard of a situation where a School Committee Chair was found, in findings by two different agencies, to have committed nine separate unlawful acts in a single year, while during the same year, the Superintendent was also found to have committed plagiarism.

In fact, in over twenty years as a parent of school-age children, I have never heard of ANY school official being found guilty of retaliation, violating public ethics law (which is what the Open Meeting Law is), or of plagiarism. NEVER. Nor have my friends, in-laws (who are teachers), professors of educational policy who I have spoken with, or anyone else. It is simply an unprecedented situation.

Nor is it usual for a school district to be the subject of both a state AND federal investigation which could potentially result in a the district being taken over by the state.

These are unpleasant facts to be sure, but the fact that you or I may not like or be proud of these facts does not mean they should be excluded from an article about the school district where they occurred. I would like to know what interest those who object to stating the truth have in protecting the administrators in the Newton schools. There must be some reason why the editors referenced above have for months continually deleted and reverted sections of the article that mentioned them, oftentimes (as just occurred a few minutes ago) even before I am finished writing them.

BTW, my only interest in this matter is as the parent of children who were exposed to the controversy and who took it upon myself to learn the facts - not assumptions, not what I would like the facts to be, but the actual facts of what has been going on. I am not going to’shut up’ about these facts due to bullying and threats by editors who appears to be associated with district administrators, perhaps even the administrators who were found to have acted unlawfully or may be found to have done so in the future..

Before going to address other aspects of my life that I have neglected for the past 1.5 hours while dealing with this nonsense, I would like to divert to the issue of the extent to which the controversy has been publicized. I counted over 130 separate articles, letters, reports, etc. saved on my computer (tried to copy the list but it caused the computer to crash) from 2011 through 2015. Not all of them meet Wikipedia citation standards, however I would like to hear anyone who tries to claim that this is a “minor” issue limited to “a few families” for “a short amount of time” explain how this “minor” issue managed to generate 130 separate publications during that time.

I am confused by John from Idegon’s statement that he will “support the current content so long as we remove the names”. What names do you have in mind? - those of the Superintendent and School Committee Chair who was found to have violated numerous laws? This is a matterof public record; I believe the Parents for Excellence in Newton Schools website links to them. Why should the fact that a school administrator was found to have violated public trust by committing unlawful acts be hidden?

Again, this is all public record and both names have been published in numerous media articles about many different subjects. Are you saying that we should now ‘protect’ this person, whose name is been noted publicly hundreds of time (as he knew would happen when he ran for office several times during the past ten years).. I fail to see what interest you, or anyone else, would possibly have in hiding this fact, which is extremely relevant to - and in fact an instigating factor in - the current controversy.

When I have a moment I will write the changes I suggest on this page and we can talk about them. That’s what both editors SHOULD have been doing for the past six months, instead of harassing me, deleting my edits before I've even finished writing them, and threatening me with all sorts of sanctions, which these editors do not have the authority to impose anyway.

I also don’t appreciate that both editors have been literally making up facts, misrepresenting facts, deleting everything I posted in both the Talk page and the article, and then tried to deny it. It hasn’t escaped me that they only backed down after I brought up the fact that I took screenshots which showed that they did perform the actions they denied. I'm not letting down my guard for a minute.

SurfRI (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Just so you know, no one is going to read that wall of text, considerably longer than the article under discussion. Can you try again, please, hitting the high points and omitting how much you are being persecuted? John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at this page's edit history, SurfRI, you can see that there have been no removals of text from this page at all. Perhaps you posted your comments on a different article or user talk page or you forgot to save your comments so that they would be posted. But there have been no deletions that I can see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors who want to contribute to an article, or a Talk page for the article, are expected to read what others have posted. A would-be editor unable or unwilling to do so should not be commenting on or editing the article or Talk page in question.

I am going to explain everything very slowly and in enough detail so that it is clear. As stated, I will not edit the article until a consensus is reached on an item and assume that no one else will perform ad hoc edits. If anyone does so I will revert the changes.

Right now I am talking about the section headed "Textbook controversy". I would like to change the heading to "Controversy over Class Material" or "Class Material Controversy" or even just "Class Material" (as the section is already headed "Controversies"). I don't care which one is used. I would just like the heading to accurately reflect the nature of the issue. It is not about one textbook, or even many textbooks; it is about class material (including textbooks, handouts, films, etc.) in general.

Does anyone have a problem with that change?

The word "anti-semitic" should be replaced with "anti-Israel". As I have pointed out, the concern is about the perceived anti-Israel nature of some material. Anti-semitism is related to anti-Israelism, but is not the same. Here are news items from different nations and different years which clearly state that the concern is over anti-Israel material:

"Parent: Newton South material defames Israeli forces". Newton Tab. October 7, 2011.

"Islamophobia as an Offensive Weapon". Jerusalem Post. February 17, 2012.

If anyone has a problem with these two changes, let me know. Otherwise, I will edit the article accordingly tomorrow. Of course, people can still bring up objections after that, but I don't plan to be held hostage for some undetermined amount of time waiting to see if anyone plans to object to minor changes that make the article more accurate.

Again, to promote accuracy, the word "textbook" in the first sentence should be changed to "text". They are NOT the same thing. The text in question was supplemental material. Students did not use the entire supplemental text, they used some or most of it. The text came in binder form, unlike a textbook. I can't believe I actually have to explain the difference between a "textbook" and a "text", but you keep reverting the changes I made which state CORRECTLY that the controversy is about class material, not textbooks.

I am also adding the words "high school" because the grade level of the students using the allegedly anti-Israel material is relevant to the issue.

The sentence "The textbook was later removed from the curriculum.[8]" also needs revision. As I pointed out above (assuming that anyone actually bothered to read it), the material was SUPPOSED to be removed. Here is an article to that effect:

"School Committee in 60 Seconds". Newton Tab. November 15, 2011 (states the material WILL BE removed, not that it WAS removed).

The problem, however, was that the material was NOT removed:

"Anti-Israel text remained in schools longer than officials let on, research shows". JointMedia News. June 13, 2014. (JointMedia is a news service, like the AP, but for Jewish and Israel-related news).

"The Boston Jewish Establishment's War on Dissent". Jewish Russian Telegraph. January 2, 2014.

It is unknown how long the material was used for.

This what the new paragraph might look like. If someone would like to change it, DISCUSS IT HERE FIRST:

Controversy over class material

In October, 2011, controversy occurred over a text used in high school World History classes which contained content that was allegedly anti-Israel.[7] Although administrators said they would remove the text,[8] it remained in use for at least a year afterwards. [Reference one or two of the sources above].

The changes are necessary to make the article more accurate. The two-sentence paragraph I revised contained FOUR ERRORS. That's why it needs to be revised by someone who actually understands the controversy, and not to have those changes reverted into additional errors by people who know little or nothing about the issue.

If you don't understand the issues involved, which have had serious repercussions including a federal investigation, and this is not a particularly important article, then why are you two here? Why don't you let me substitute "anti-Israel" for "anti-semitic", "text" for "textbook", etc., let me write my three paragraphs, and leave me alone? What is the purpose of insisting on repeated revisions which make the article LESS accurate?

Why are you so interested in this relatively unimportant article, anyway? For me, this is my first editing opportunity, and I found the article by looking at a number of topics I am familiar with. I am extremely familiar with this topic as my children have attended Newton Public School for a combined total of thirty years. My children were in classes where the controversy occurred and I learned a great deal about the issues involved.

I thought this would be a good article for my first editing 'job', because it needed a relatively small amount of work on an interesting and relevant topic to make it accurate and more than just a list of school names. What I found instead was rudeness, deception, and threats.

BTW, SQGibbons, there is nothing in the WikiSchools project page which states that controversial or divisive topics or acts that effect a school community cannot be written about. The WikiSchools cites the article Amador Valley High School as a Featured Article, meaning that it is one of the best articles anywhere in Wikipedia. The article contains a lengthy section titled "Court Battle" which describes a suit brought by the school district against the state. This was of course an extremely controversial issue, yet for some reason no one on the Talk page said anything about not writing "too much" on certain issues. And the WikiSchols project page is also very clear that there are no hard-and-fast rules when it comes to writing about school districts, which is certainly different than what SQGibbons said a couple of days ago.

I will respond to some of the more ridiculous claims in the post that makes them.

Certainly more topics could be added - for example, the NPS is considering delaying the time high school classes begin so that teens can get more sleep. If that happens, it could be added, but not if I can't write a two-sentence paragraph without being edit-warred, harassed and threatened. Both of you are so focused on making my Wikipedia experience unpleasant that you have totally lost sight of the fact that the purpose of editing is to produce an accurate, interesting article.

Again, I do not want to receive any private messages from either of you. If you have something to say to me, say it here.

SurfRI (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a private message here. If your meaning is your personal talk page, if I have a policy violation warning to post there that is exactly what I will do. You are not required to respond.

No one is required to read the rambling walls of text you are posting here. See TLDR. This is a collaborative project, ran by consensus. You will need someone to agree with you to get what you want. In order for someone to agree with you, they have to hear what you are saying. Most editors are not going to read the nearly 20,000 characters you have typed here today. This article may be your sole interest on Wikipedia; most editors are not SPAs. I watch nearly 4,000 articles, nearly all associated with either US schools or US places. One of the other editors commenting here is the original creator of the highest quality school articles on Wikipedia. Yet another is an ADMINISTRATOR and a clerk to the arbitration committee. Another is a coordinator of Wikiproject Schools, the in-house group that develops the content guidelines for school related articles.

If you would lose the combative attitude, and understand that what the other editors want here is a quality article and try to work cooperatively, perhaps we can produce a better article. You need to recognize however that you are probably not going to be the sole arbitor of what "better" means. Okay? John from Idegon (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy isn't a matter of opinion or how many people comment on a page. It's a matter of objective sources and being able to change one's mind when one is wrong.

The reason I wrote so much is because of the need to explain to you and SQGibbons over, and over, and over, why certain changes should be made. You are either deliberately obtuse or unable to understand concepts such as the difference between anti-Israelism and anti-semitism, and the distinction between "text" and "textbook". I know this because every time I make the slightest, simplest change to the article, you revert it. Therefore I am attempting to explain to you in simple but clear terms why I believe the changes I made are necessary.

If you're unable or unwilling to read what changes I made and why, you are free to move on to another article. It's ridiculous to barge in when someone (me) has begun editing an article, and then complain because you don't like the way she explains her edits!

You don't appear to know anything about the topic I am spending all of four or five paragraphs writing about, or anything else about the Newton Public Schools. Your reversions are not helpful and only makes the article LESS accurate. You don't say what your reasoning is. You are not helping me and not improving the quality of the article.

What is your purpose in editing this article? It's not something you know about, and the article is too obscure for you to stumble upon. Who suggested you edit this particular article, and what is your purpose in being here?

This is my suggested revision of the first subsection after the section "Controversies":

Controversy over class material

In October, 2011, controversy occurred over a text used in high school World History classes which contained content that was allegedly anti-Israel.[7] Although administrators said they would remove the text,[8] it remained in use for at least a year afterwards. [Reference one or two sources here].

What do you think of the edit, which is the reason we're supposedly here? Do you have anything to say about it?

(SurfRI (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't say without the sources. I am not going to tell you again. STOP TALKING ABOUT THE EDITORS. I will not warn you again. You are new here; whether you choose to believe it or not, we are trying to help. Your entire editing history is pretty much this article. The other editors here have made hundreds of thousands edits, to tens of thousands articles. It isn't a giant leap to understand that perhaps we know more about how things get done here than you. Please, please, understand that discussion, dispassionate discussion, based solely on the sources is how change occurs here. Also, there has been no administrative action taken on this article, nor on any of the editors here. Your behavior is the only behavior here that is, as of this point, sanctionable. Wikipedia has been around almost 15 years and the modes of doing things have developed across that time. Although everyone has input on how things get done, this is not the place for it. Please cease the histrionics or find something better to do. No one is abusing either you or the process here (except you and you don't seem to know any better). I don't know about you, but if I wondered into a new place and found its normal operations to be as displeasing as you obviously do, I'd just go elsewhere. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If the sources you are advancing are the ones from up in your wall of text above that appear below, I would oppose that. It's trivial, and the sources themselves say that. It appears to have been nothing more than a misunderstanding about an oversight, nothing more. Not worthy of inclusion in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not obligated to hide the fact that I have been subject to threats and inappropriate behavior, and that the history of the article was changed. And I will not be bullied out of editing the article.

It is also a fact that the material in question ≤was used for at least a year after administrators said it would be removed. (They also claimed, in a letter to parents, that it had been removed). Wikipedia is about facts, not speculation. Certainly there was no "misunderstanding" involved - misunderstanding by whom? About what?

Administrators said the material would be removed and it wasn't. No one 'misunderstood' anything. And how would you possibly know that the failure to remove the material was an 'oversight'?

Given the facts, the interpretation most favorable to the school is that they did not try very hard to remove the material. Even in this best-case scenario, the failure to remove the material was certainly a very deliberate 'oversight'.

In normal practice, when administrators make up their minds about a policy, they make sure it is followed. If a policy is important enough to be established or change, it is important enough to enforce. In this case, administrators apparently did not believe that removing biased, and arguably racist, material from classrooms was important enough to follow through with.

The fact that administrators announced that they would remove this material, and then did not, is not "trivial". Nowhere in the sources does anyone state that this is a trivial or unimportant matter. And the fact that it was a parent, not administrators, who found out that the material was still in use further indicates that the failure to do so may not have been accidental.

It is not known how many teachers continued to use the material after it was supposedly removed. We do not have enough information to determine why administrators failed to carry through with their promise to remove inappropriate material.

It is inaccurate to say that the material was "later removed" because it implies that the removal was the result of, and occurred shortly after, the 2011 fracas.

Here is another way to write the last sentence:

Administrators said they would remove the text,[8] however it remained in use for at least another year.[Reference]

Thoughts?

In addition to the above, other changes need to be made in the article. I am writing them here prior to making changes in the article. These are also minor changes designed to correct mistakes and make the article more accurate.

Proposed changes:

Intro:

Newton Public Schools is a school district in Newton, Massachusetts, U.S.A. The district has fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, and and two high schools plus an alternative high school.

Please state an objections and the reasons behind them here.

Under "Contents", the word "primary" should be replaced with the word "elementary", as that is the language used by the school district.

More changes are needed, I will add them later.

SurfRI (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I realized that some other changes should be made in the Introduction. The proposed edits are below. If anyone objects to these minor edits, which increase the article's accuracy, please state your reasoning below:

Proposed edits:

Newton Public Schools ("NPS") is a public school [reference to source that explains what a public school is] district in Newton, Massachusetts, U.S.A. The district has fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, and and two high schools plus an alternative high school.

SurfRI (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm done. There is a consensus on what the page should look like. You refuse to engage in any discussion without ascribing motives to the other editors and demanding that things be done your way. Take some time, read up on policy and procedures and come back when you are prepared to participate in a meaningful and effective manner. As I said, there is a consensus for what the controversy section should look like. Don't change it. If you want to improve the article, update the stats. They are 7 years out of date. Tata. John from Idegon (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus so far on the "Controversies" section is that SQGibbons and I think it should be included and revised to make it accurate, and you disagree about the accuracy part. I am still waiting for comments to the revised sentence above, which I changed at your behest.

Last week I voluntarily removed myself from making edits until a consensus on each edit is reached. I have since proposed edits in several sections of the article, including suggestions that (IMHO) cannot possibly be considered controversial. No one has responded to these proposed edits. It appears that some editors are interested only in responding to so-called controversial edits that they disagree with, even if they make the article more accurate, and have no interest at all in even looking at other edits which will also improve accuracy. This article has many faults and needs work. I cannot do this work if literally every edit I make is reverted, and those who revert it refuse to make, discuss, or participate in ANY attempt to improve the accuracy of the article.

SurfRI (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Article protected

Without prejudice as to who may be right I have fully protected this article against further edit warring and/or content dispute. One thing is certain, nobody on this talk page is expected to read through repeated walls of text and such posts are very likely to be ignored. See WP:TLDR. The solution here is to start a proper RfC on this page where the votes/comments are kept short and succinct and a significant number of participants have helped build a consensus. For more input into this discussion I suggest leaving a note at WT:WPSCH and I'm also pinging CT Cooper who is the most experienced coordinator of that project. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's great; I would love to start over with a neutral editor. I think it's best to begin with edits which (IMHO) cannot possibly be considered controversial in any way. I posted such an edit, for the introductory paragraph of the article, above. Here it is:

Newton Public Schools ("NPS") is a public school district in Newton, Massachusetts, U.S.A. The district has fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, and and two high schools plus an alternative high school.

The second sentence is supported by an external link (referenced at the bottom of the page) to the Newton Public Schools website.

Are there any objections to this change?

I would also like to make a change in the "Contents" section: The phrase "primary school" should be replaced with the phrase "elementary school", as that is the language used by the school district.

Are there any objections to this change?

I first proposed these changes yesterday. If there are no objections made by tomorrow, I will edit the page.

SurfRI (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

SurfRI. No one can edit the page now other than administrators. If you wish for an edit to be made, plrease see WP:EDITREQUEST and follow the instructions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, I have read and it says that requests for edits should be made on the talk page. I am hereby doing so.

Again, the changes I would like to make are to:

1. Replace the current introduction (directly under the title of the article) with this introduction:

Newton Public Schools ("NPS") is a public school district in Newton, Massachusetts, U.S.A. The district has fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, and and two high schools plus an alternative high school.

The second sentence is supported by an external link (referenced at the bottom of the page) to the Newton Public Schools website.

2. In the "Schools" section, I would like to replace what is written with this:

Students in grades K - 5 attend elementary schools; grades 6 - 8 attend middle schools, and grades 9 - 12 attend high school. The total enrollment in 2014 was 12,503 students. [reference]

the reference is

or in parsed form "Enrollment Analysis Report 2014-2015 to 2019-2020" (PDF). Newton Public Schools. November 2014.

3. In the chart in the "Schools" section, I would like to do the following:

Line up the numbers, to the greatest extent possible, so that commas and decimal points are in line with each other

None of these requests is controversial.

SurfRI (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Editorial suggestions. 1st, instead of [[Public_school]], you can use the actual article title with piping ([[State school|public school]]) or use [[school district|public school district]] since it is more direct link. State school is a large article and Public_school (Public school) is a disambiguation page. As a side note, you don't need the underscore (_) when using wikilinks ---> Public school. Lower case is also acceptable ---> public school. But again, I would suggest using the school district article instead as the target link.

Thank you for your suggestions, JonRidinger. I hope this response is correct in terms of formatting, etc.; I checked in the Sandbox and it seemed fine there. If I'm doing something wrong, can you please let me know?

Linking to the one of the articles you suggested is fine. The reason I linked to the article originally in the edit request was because I thought it might be confusing is the term "public school" was linked to an article about "state schools", and that it would be less confusing to a (Public school) site even though it was a disambiguation page because it clearly told the reader where to go. But this is a minor matter, and people are capable of figuring this out on their own. So in terms of a consensus about the change you suggest, I agree with you.

• 2nd, you don't need to source the line in the lead about how many schools there are. The lead is simply a summary of the article as a whole, so unless there is some truly outstanding fact mentioned in the lead, there's no need to have a separate citation. The later list of schools takes care of that. I would also recommend using "United States" instead of "U.S.A." (see MOS:NOTUSA).

Thank you for reminding me that the lead need not be sourced. The only reason I mentioned the external link was to show that there was a source for what I wrote.

I agree that "United States" should be used instead of "U.S.A". Thank you for pointing that out, because I hadn't noticed it.

• 3rd- "Students in grades K - 5 attend elementary schools; grades 6 - 8 attend middle schools, and grades 9 - 12 attend high school. The total enrollment in 2014 was 12,503 students." I would recommend ---> "Total enrollment for the district in 2014 was 12,503 students with grades K–5 housed in the elementary schools, grades 6–8 at the middle schools, and grades 9–12 in the high schools." Just a reminder that any citation with a web link also needs to have the "accessdate=" parameter present and filled in ---><ref>{{cite web |title=Enrollment Analysis Report 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 |url=http://www.newton.k12.ma.us/cms/lib8/MA01907692/Centricity/Domain/68/Enrollment%20Analysis%20Report%20-%2011-24-14_0.pdf |publisher=Newton Public Schools |date=November 2014 |accessdate=December 1, 2015 |format=PDF}}</ref>

The sentence you suggest is fine (in other words, I concur) and thank you for reminding me that the access date should be included in references to web sources.

• 4th, the data table arrangement is about as good as it gets. There really isn't a whole lot more editors can do to line them up any more than they are as you seem to want. I would suggest since the section mentions the total enrollment that it include the actual total numbers for elementary, middle, and high schools along with the average size already present. The "Student:Teacher goal" column serves no purpose. Readers generally want to know what the current student:teacher ratio is, not the district's hope. The way it is currently written, at first glance, makes it look like those are the current ratios. Goals are certainly noble, but don't really help the reader understand the topic better, plus it could also fall under WP:CRYSTAL, which relates to speculation. Goals like that are more appropriate for the district's own website. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur that the column "Student:Teacher goal" should be removed. I also concur that the column "Student Average" should be replaced with a column titled "Average class size 2014-2015". The numbers in this column should be as follows: Elementary 21.2, Middle 21.7, High 22. The reference for these statistics is

I concur that we can add a column showing the total number of students in elementary, middle, and high school. I suggest the column be titled "Total number of students 2014". Here are the figures: Elementary 5,700; Middle 2,849; High 3,793. The reference is the same as above: .

With respect to the data table, it is very easy to get the numbers to line up. All one needs to do is to put a space, or more than one space, in front of smaller numbers until the figures are aligned. There should be no difficulty with this at all.

Edit requests

SurfRI. Please follow the official instructions. If you continue your disruption you will be blocked as warned on your talk page. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, can you please tell me how the above edit request is "disruptive". I have read the pages you referred to as well as other pages, for example on how the Talk section should be structured. I believe that I have followed the suggestions in those pages, with the exception that I realized prior to reading your note that I should have made a separate section for "Edit Request". Would you like me to add that heading so that my request falls under it?

If I inadvertently made a mistake, perhaps you can tell me what the mistake is, rather than calling me "disruptive" and saying you will block me from editing for a reason unknown to me. Human beings do not learn when they are criticized for making mistakes without being told what those mistakes are.

SurfRI (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

All the blue words on Wikipedia are links to other information. Please see all the messages on your talk page and start clicking the links and reading the advice and infomatio they direct you to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Rebooting this page

Due to the extremely disruptive editing of SurfRI, this page has been rendered useless. Besides the obvious TLDR, the editor has been interspersing their comments inside other editor's comments, editing their earlier comments and in at least one instance on Dec 1, inserted a comment in the midst of another editors comment from JUNE.

I have no idea who has said what, and I am certain no one else does either.

I am asking the following from an Admin:

1. Archive the entire talk page.
2. Give SurfRI a final warning for talk page disruption, and point them to appropriate guidance for proper talk page etiquette.

Most times, I edit from a tablet. I cannot load this entire page. Help, please. John from Idegon (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The talk page won't be archived until it's inactive, even if you disagree with how the discussion has unfolded including walls of text. That being said, if you have an editorial issue with the person in question, I suggest you file something at WP:ANI. However, it does seem SurfRI has already received a final warning from Kudpung above. Mkdw^talk 22:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit and request for consensus through editing

I have reviewed the pages linked to my Talk page, as well as other pages on consensus and editing. I would like to put out this proposed edit for comments and to reach consensus. Once consensus is reached on this section, I can submit it for review to make sure everything is in order before making a formal request for editing.

These are the proposed changes:

1. Replace the current lead with this lead: Newton Public Schools ("NPS") is a public school district in Newton, Massachusetts, United States. The district has fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, two high schools, and two alternative high schools.

2. In the "Schools" section, to replace the first sentence with this sentence:

Total enrollment for the district in 2014 was 12,503 students with grades K–5 housed in the elementary schools, grades 6–8 at the middle schools, and grades 9–12 in the high schools.[1]

3. In the "Schools" section, to replace the current chart with this chart:

Newton Public Schools 2014-2015

Level	Number of students	Average class size	Student:Teacher ratio
Elementary Schools	5,799	21.2	Not available
Middle Schools	2,849	21.7	Not available
High Schools	3,793	22.0	Not available

^ Jump up to: a b c d "Our District at a Glance". Newton Public Schools. Retrieved 3 December 2015.

I removed the "number of schools" column because the information and breakdown of the number of elementary, middle and high schools are in the lead; and because what is in the lead is more clear than what could be indicated with this chart in terms of the high schools (four high schools altogether, two are small alternative high schools; the consensus in the community is that there are two high schools (i.e. the alternative schools are usually not considered when the question arises as to how many high schools there are in Newton).

SurfRI (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

1. I would leave out the Student-Teacher ratio if you don't have any data. "Not Available" doesn't help anyone; it just takes up space needlessly. If the district or another outside group publishes data on that, you can add it in fairly easily. I'd simply round the numbers up or down since you can't have 21.7 students in a class, at least physically ;) (I'm a teacher, so figuratively it's definitely possible! HA!). Also, little MOS issue, "schools" would be lower case in the chart ("High schools"). You also wouldn't bold the title of the chart. You can put that in a header as part of the chart.

2. It's OK to have info duplicated in the body of the article that is in the lead. In fact, all info in the lead should be duplicated elsewhere in the article, just with some more surrounding detail. There shouldn't be any unique info in the lead since it is a summary of the article. The chart is simply to organize the data in a way that prose can't. Be sure to check out WP:LEAD. All the more reason to further develop the other parts of the article so the lead doesn't completely dominate.

3. Is there anywhere else in the article where the "NPS" abbreviation is used? If not, I would leave it out of the lead. Abbreviations are used when they are familiar and have regular use in sources (like NBA, NFL, MLB, etc.) and/or in the rest of the article.

4. As for the number of high schools, if the total enrollment number includes those students, then it should show "4" high schools, though a footnote is appropriate. If the district counts them separately in their totals, then mention them separately. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, JonRidinger, they are they are very relevant. I believe I am responding them in the correct way in terms of format; if I'm doing something wrong would you please let me know? Thanks!

1. You're completely correct regarding removing the "Student-Teacher ratio" column. With respect to rounding the figures in the "Class Size" column though, I don't think I should do that because that would be adding my own interpretation to the officially released data (similar to the prohibition against 'Original Research'). I looked everywhere I could think of (WP:ED, WP:LGL (Content, Behavioral, Editing and Style sub-categories)) to find a policy that said you can't change what your sources say, but couldn't find one. Also, if I changed the numbers by founding then there wouldn't be any soure for a reference. So my thinking is to leave it in, b/c of the reference reason and because I can't find any source that says it's o.k. to change it. Does that make sense?

With respect to "High Schools" v. "High schools", I had thought about that and included the capitalization because Newton high schools are called, for example "Newton North High School" (its official name); however since it's plural rather than referring to a single school I think you're correct, so I'll change that.

With respect to the title of the chart, I can certainly un-bold it and put it in a header.

2 and 4. I can substitute "Number of schools" (with a footnote about the alternative high schools) for "Student-Teacher ratio".

3. I thought to use the abbreviation "NPS" in later sections of the article but it makes sense to leave that change unless and until that abbreviation is actually used.

I'll add a new proposed chart once I figure it out.

SurfRI (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In relation to the average class size, it is OK to round to the nearest whole number, especially since it's referencing actual people. See MOS:UNCERTAINTY, specifically the part that says "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." The more precise 21.7 number, for instance, can be used by the district to compare with past years to note a trend. But for our purposes here, the average class size is 22. It's not inaccurate; it's just not precise. In the prose you could even say "average class size is approximately 20 students" or "20–25 students" and it would still be accurate and in line with the sources. Again, it's about giving a general, yet thorough, idea about the subject without being overly detailed. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Two points. First, I'd really like to see data from a secondary source such as the state DOE or NCES. Secondary sources are always preferred when available and they certainly are available. Second, we are not presenting a huge amount of data. Is a table the best way? I'd prefer prose, as it does not leave all the white space on the page. John from Idegon (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And FYI, "NPS" does have a common usage. It is the generally accepted abbreviation for "National Park service". John from Idegon (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Below is a re-revised chart; my reasoning is explained below it. Again, if I am doing something wrong I would appreciate being told that instead of stating that I am on a 'soapbox', or 'disruptive', or making threats, without further explanation. If anyone would like to know my 'agenda', is that this and any other article I edit be factual as well as conform to Wikipedia standards.

Newton Public Schools
Level	Number of schools[1]	Number of students[1]	Average class size[1]
Elementary schools	15	5,799	21.2
Middle schools	4	2,849	21.7
High schools	2	3,793	22.0

I put the "Number of schools" back in because what's in the lead is supposed to also go elsewhere in the article, and as the chart is making comparisons between school levels, it seems a good place to put it.

I realize that the footnotes on the chart skip a number; I think this is because the chart is only a part of the total edit. Once there is a consensus on the chart (the last section of this edit), I will put the entire edit together, make sure everything is correct, and submit it as an edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfRI (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to comments/why I did or didn't do certain things:

@JonRidinger - Even though it's o.k. to round the numbers, I would still prefer to leave it decimal form if allowed, even if that means you have a .7 child in your class, partly because I'm in a profession where accuracy is important and it's an axiom not to round numbers because it can cause serious problems. Also, rounding the numbers would add an unnecessary level of complexity to that column. Either it would need another footnote explaining that the numbers were rounded, or the footnote giving the source would need to be include that information (and again, it would also mean that the footnote is not entirely accurate, because the numbers in the column are not the actual numbers in the source. So IMHO, rounding would make the chart and its footnotes more complex while at the same time making the chart less accurate.

If you like, we can wait for a consensus if/when someone else weighs in. In issues that are important I would say that three people weighing in aren't enough, but this is a minor issue so if anyone else wants to make the deciding vote I'm fine with it.

@John from Idegon - (1) I used to audit large public health programs and conduct due diligence reviews for business transactions. The working premise for audits, which determine the reliability of data, is that unless there is a reason to the contrary, you always want to get as close to the source of your data as possible. In other words, when assessing programs it will be more accurate to take data from an original source/unit than a secondary source. (Again, this presumes that there is no incentive for the unit source to confabulate, which is the case here).

In this case, the Newton Public School figures and the figures set forth by the relevant state agency are nearly identical. In other cases, simply relying on the state data without further investigation could result in serious inaccuracies.

Although secondary sources overall are sometimes considered more reliable for events require interpretation, this does not follow for data (in fact, it doesn't even necessarily follow for events subject to interpretation - each case must evaluated on its own merits). See WP:USEPRIMARY, an explanatory source for WP:PSTS. And although complex data may require interpretation, we are not dealing here with any level of complexity. Think of it as a game of telephone. The farther away one gets from the original source, the less likely it is to be correct. The claim that "Secondary sources are always preferred when available" is simply not true; a look at the Wikipedia articles and policies above explain that.

IMO, the suggested change could make the article potentially less accurate and no more reliable.

(2) If there were only two columns in the chart I would agree with you, but three columns means nine separate items of information, which is above the number that most people can keep in their short-term memory, much less to analyze. I believe that breaking the numbers into three groups of three which can then be compared against each other will allow readers to grasp the meaning of these numbers (what there is of it) much better than could be done if the numbers were in prose. Also, this table is longer than the current one, so there won't be as much white space.

SurfRI (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been a week and there's been no response to the above, so I can only assume that editors who weighted in before either agree with my points or don't care. I'm going to go ahead and make an Edit Request based on what I believe should be done. Kudpung, would you like to add anything before I do so?

SurfRI (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

First off, you physically cannot edit the page. It is protected and only an administrator can edit it. Even if that were not the case, you do not IMO have a consensus to make any changes. I'll defer to an administrator to weigh any consensus, but I see none. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newton Public Schools. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1739513286/School-Committee-in-60-seconds-SpEd-deficit-Newton-MCAS-results-and-budget-planning

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)