Talk:Da Vinci Charter Academy

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

why?

Why did this page have a bunch of empty sections, including one titled "Lotus Notes"? Cmouse 05:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several Reasons; like I said earlier, it was probably started as a class project, and someone obviously did not finish the article to the extent that they had planned. Anyway, I have extended the article in my latest edit, and so it should be a little more helpful.206.15.239.253 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it

Personally, I'd like to see this not noteworthy school stub deleted. 09:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this is an incredibly revolutionary school. The article does need some help, though... Anyway, the reason this page was made was becuase we had an assignment to make or overhaul a Wikipedia page. Just thought I'd let you know. TrogdorPolitiks 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was me. I forgot to log in. ;-)TrogdorPolitiks 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toytoy, this is an encyclopedia. It's meant to provide information on topics. It's not meant to cover the most important things, but instead to provide information on things. Of course, it's not a bucket of raw information, but any article that follows the guidelines is worth keeping. Also, this school is noteworthy. Project based learning is a big thing, bro. --Guugolpl0x (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Please finish merging or do it off the page. Thanks. Cmouse 00:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subjective

"Here is a student's remark: "I thought DVHS would be a cool place to learn new stuff. But I soon found out that because disciplinary action is not taken seriously, the campus not only was disrupted frequently, but also had unexperianced teachers who made all classes boooringg.""--This sentence in the first paragraph strikes me as extremely one-sided. As a student who attends Da Vinci high, I ask other viewpoints be added in or the above remark be taken out. Plus, the comment was unrelated compared to the rest of the paragraph.

Sorry, I didn't see that get added. Real life has got a bit busy lately. You can always change it yourself next time - anyone can edit wikipedia. :) Cmouse 08:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

This self-referencing article when compared with [1] shows a huge disparity between the lip-mouth-keyboard self-service of the article and the behavior of the student corps vis-á-vis the Wikipedia. Please, complain to the principal/director at the email address listed in the reference and re-cast accordingly this article or delete it forever. Irresponsible students shouldn't have IP-use privilidges [sic] and should spell better. Jclerman 17:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about what you're asking people to do with this article. If you could clarify your request, that would be great. By the way, I was looking into the vandalism issue, and the IP address for this school may also serve another school of 2000+ students, so communicating with this school's director may not solve the problem. TrogdorPolitiks 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same IP as Davis High as well as you are suggesting? I honestly don't know. If you want to find out, go make an edit from one of the computers in the Davis High library without logging in and see what IP made it. The Ungovernable Force 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he's getting at is that he sees a stark disparity between the block log and the claim that Leonardo Da Vinci High School students are responsible for their actions. However, both of you need to remember that a) teenagers have never been responsible, b) Students cannot legally be refused acess to a public connection without both significant reason and previous action, c) the actions of one individual do not ncessarily represent the maturity of an entire school of three hundred, and d) it's al right if there are spelling errors etc, there are other editors and bots that fix problems like that. Oh, and also, I would blame the students for having bad spelling; if they do it's probably their teacher's fault. ;-) And remember, everybody makes mistakes and bad judgments, that sort of thing is unavoidable. Ahudson 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Environment" section

For reference, here is the section:

"The environment at DVHS is very informal. Students sit in table groups, but are allowed to sit on the floor if they wish. They are allowed to listen to music during worktimes, and many often do. CD players and iPods, while not allowed at most schools, are commonly used during class time at DVHS. This creates a more relaxed work environment, and it also allows students to feel more in control and exercise responsibility more often.

The eight classrooms are arranged in a ring, with a courtyard in the middle. The floor of the courtyard is painted blue, and it has several tables. All of the doors in the classrooms have been artistically designed and painted by students, with whimsical colors and shapes on several of them. Two of the classrooms also function as a lounge while they don't have classes in them, so they have several couches, a snack vending machine, and a fish tank."

Bolded text has verifiability and/or neutrality problems; italicized text has notability and/or verifiability problems.

First, to say that the environment is very informal is unverifiable and biased. An expert could be quoted as calling the school "very informal", but it is not verifiable fact.

Next, the discussion of portable music players. Whether they are allowed in other schools is difficult but theoretically possible to verify (i.e. "A 2005 Gallup poll reported that the overwhelming majority of schools in all sovereign states do not allow portable music players. <footnote to reliable source here>") Finally, whether this creates a relaxed work environment or allows students to feel in control is unverifiable and biased.

Next, we come to descriptions of the school. Such descriptions lack notability and can not be verified with reliable sources. TrogdorPolitiks has kindly offered to take photos of the school to back up such claims. I quote the previous link: "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." Such issues may seem trivial, but physical environments are subject to change. To illustrate the notability question: If some New Yorker added a section to the Empire State Building article saying "The chairs in the lounges are mauve. Vending machines abound, though no offices have animal life", that section would be reverted in minutes.

Some of this content is reasonable enough, but just doesn't stand on its own. Deltabeignet 05:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the section was included is that it is one of the more important things about the school, other than the technology used. The environment at the school is one of the main factors separating it from the adjacent Davis Senior High School, and is the product of one of the most important parts of the school's philosophy, to simulate a real-life work environment.

I don't see how the statements made in the article are biased; the environment that the administration has constructed, including the technological tools available, is why the school is notable. Since the school is only two years old, there is no published content that I have been able to find to back this up. But, not all article content is referenced, even on articles more important than this one. See Antonín Dvořák for a random example of an article with no references, even though many assertions are made that are not necessarily verifiable (for example, that one of his symphonies is better than another, or that he is incredibly important in music history),

I response to Deltabeignet's argument about notability, his Empire State Building example has absolutely no relevance; the Empire State Building probably has several lounges, and different-colored chairs in each. Besides, the fact that mauve chairs and vending machines exist in one part of the building is not part of the reason the building exists; however, the environment at DVHS is one of the major reasons that the school is notable and therefore deserves an article.

If there is someone who can contradict any of the information stated, than I will stop arguing for it's inclusion. If, for any reason, any of it is not true, than it obviously should not be included. However, it is all true, and though because of the school's brief history there is not published material supporting it, it is still relevant information that should be included in the article.

Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Besides, I was under the impression that more heinous problems should be corrected before minor questions like this one. I don't understand why this particular article must be so heavily policed when many of the pop culture articles (especially about music) are much worse than this article. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Argh, the "why don't you fix the other pages?" shtick. What happens in other articles is irrelevant. (Honestly, I try to fix the pop culture and music articles, but I'm only one man.) I admit that the core policies are regularly flouted in articles, but that means those articles should be fixed, not used as a benchmark.

To clarify: The bold sentences are biased because 1)they express a point of view, and 2)they can not be factually established using reliable sources. No book, article, or webpage could possibly change that. Whether or not a place is informal is not quantitative; it can't be measured.

I didn't write "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas"; I just enforce it. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth; it is verifiability. If something can't be verified, special circumstances (i.e. the school being recent) don't matter. It simply doesn't belong, true or not.

Some of this content probably is notable and/or relevant. However, is it permanent school policy to let students listen to music? What stops someone from moving the fish tank? That's the problem with using personal experience to write articles.

I really am sorry that this whole thing snowballed the way it did. Deltabeignet 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Deltabeignet 06:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... this whole thing is a bit outrageous. All you need to do is correct it so that its a statment of intention, instead of fact (i.e. "This is INTENDED to create a more relaxed....").

However, this section should not be deleted because it is a major factor of why the article (and school) are important, and deserves to have an article. On another note, if you're looking for a source, I'd recommend [2], Davis' web-based wiki (rather extensive, actually, I'm sure you can find something). But seriously, Deltabeignet, you're an administrator, surely you have better things to do than bully an editor about verifiability in one statement... there are much worse cases of this, and other things that need far more attention (see japanese war crimes, that's one that does need attention from a few editors) Ahudson 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to question the comepetence of deltabeignet for the following reasons: a) In my understanding, it is general practice to add a "citation needed" tag instead of merely deleting two paragraphs of information, without any discussion or compensation to the content. A lack of a source is no reason to delete infromation, unless the information can be proven to be correct; b) the deleted section is one of the core values centered in the article, it is information necessary to understand the topic; c) it appears that deltabeignet did absolutely no research before taking action.

It is my understanding that an administrator is supposed to be an experienced contributor that knows how wikipedia works, not one that goes around deleting material that he deems trivial. How did you become an editor, deltabeignet? Ahudson 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit. However, I'm guessing you're wondering how I became an administrator. The answer can be found here. More importantly, my position as an administrator has nothing to do with this page; I haven't protected the page, blocked TrogdorPolitiks or rolled back his edits. My roles as an editor and as an admin are separate; here, I have acted only as a regular user.

I do use {{fact}} on articles sometimes. You say that a lack of a source is no reason to delete content. I quote Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." In addition to rigorously applying the original research and verifiability policies, I take WP:BOLD to heart. School articles in particular are barraged with well-meaning students adding unverifiable content. Personal experience is no way to write a professional-grade encyclopedia.

As a side note, questioning the competence of other editors may be taken as a breach of Wikipedia:Civility.

Long story short, the section has some importance to the article, and parts of it are reasonable enough. My original position was a bit harsh. With this edit, I believe I can accept the paragraph. Truce? Deltabeignet 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine now. Thanks for trying so hard to solve this. I will find a citation or something to clarify the article. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

first U.S. high school to issue laptops?

Using Google, I already found half a dozen American high schools that did that by at least fall of 2004. A citation needs to be provided for this claim in the intro paragraph. --C S (Talk) 06:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bakit?? tagalog no

I am positive that there are numerous high schools that have issued laptops to their students, but I believe that Da Vinci High is the first non-vocational public high school to do so. I'll check, though. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

I removed it for now, since the tag had been there a while. --C S (Talk) 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come ON

I don't have time right now, but I would really like this page improved. Could some of you Da Vinci Wikipedians out there cite alot of the unverified statements out there? I don't have time. --Guugolpl0x (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Please delete this

Really, a small charter school in the small town of Davis, California is insignificant. Nothing about it makes it stand out. I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.23.117 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leonardo da Vinci High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]