Talk:Zero-tolerance policies in schools

message: The lack of citation, the inlining of opinion quotes, the general lack of substance; that the audience might be generally sympathetic to the point of view would appear to be the only reason this article didn't already have a neutrality tag. If clear sources can't be given then large parts of this should be excised.
Further, two hundred examples of wrongdoing don't add any more than the current twenty of so. ZT is more than just "some idiot overreacted to something". Air your grievances on you livejournals, childs. Thumper 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral as nitric acid 

message: Please do not remove the {unreferenced} template or the [fact] requests until you have complied with Wikipedia:Cite sources. Every assertion currently unreferenced should either be verified by a "proper" citation or deleted. David91 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Dear David- I have checked the wikipedia reference guidance information and can't figure out in what way my references are not proper. If you will please please be so kind as provide me that information it would be most helpful. Many thanks.David Justin 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pleased and relieved that you are interested in learning how to write a balanced encyclopedia entry. In the entry above, I did take the trouble to set out the issues you would need to address to make the piece more objective. At present, you are doing no more than reporting news which is biased and not encyclopedic. It is biased in the sense that it wishes to frame the reader's reaction as "Wow! That is unfair!" Instead of reporting a factual context, e.g. that the student had been a disciplinary problem for years, the episode is made to appear notable by deliberately suppressing all information that might enable the reader to reach a contrary opinion. I agree that some references have now appeared. Unfortunately, they are not obviously acceptable. For example, "Scaringi, D. "Zero Tolerance Needed for Safe Schools." St. Petersburg (FL) Times, June 24, 2001." seems to be a newspaper opinion piece. As such, it does not match the requirement for a verifiable source. To be a verifiable source, the publication you cite should be of a proper standard. All that you have done is to find a journalist who holds the same opinion that you do. I will leave you to remove the offending "sources". To be NPOV, you have to produce information on all sides of the debate, and you have to be able to cite verifiable authority. If you cannot cite verifiable authority, you are not supposed to put the information in. I was subjected to major criticism for simply entering content from memory. I ended up having to send for photocopies of journal articles to justify the entry. Pending that, my information did not go into the article space. It is a tough rule, but we are aiming to produce something of quality here. David91 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I question the attribution of the notion that "Supporters of zero tolerance policies claim that such policies are required to create an appropriate environment" to Noguera, 2005.  While such a claim is made, Noguera's article argues for the humanization of the school environment and critiques such policies.  Listing Noguera's scholarly work with a newspaper article may inappropriately legitimize the argument he refutes.  Additionally, the second reference to Noguera's work, (Noguera, 2007), is not listed in the reference section. (MO)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.255.178 (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Noguera's Work

message: Supporters of zero tolerance policies claim that such policies are required to create an appropriate environment (Scaringi, 2001; Noguera, 1995). They also point to examples of persons in authority providing lax discipline in the past, with a resulting breakdown in order (for example, in a school environment)(Scaringi, 2001).
Some supporters also argue that the mass publicising of examples of unfairness serves the schools' purpose by frightening students into conformity. They point to the millions of student acts and omissions each and every school day, only an infinitesimal percentage of which prove to be unfairly penalised.(Noguera, 1995)
What do these assertions mean? These "policies are required to create an appropriate environment" Who requires them? Appropriate to whom and for what? Why do "these supporters" refer to past laxness when their concern is current indiscipline. Were the rules always in place and not enforced, or did "these supporters" rewrite the rules? Then you quote me but attribute the quote to Noguera in 1995. You should not invent citations.
I could go on but I do not want to appear gratuitously unkind. In all seriousness, it would be better to throw all this content away and start again with a blank screen to build up a balanced and verifiable piece. David91 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write this piece but tried to make it an acceptable article by deleting many of the examples of ZT abuse and by referencing content. It appears that a lot of people don't like the content but aren't willing to do any work to improve it; it's much easier to criticize than to create.David Justin 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had the expertise, I would rewrite this element, but I know nothing about the North American education system. If it was about the European system, I would already have rewritten the element. It is not a case of either liking or disliking the content. NPOPV requires editors to present all relevant views fairly. The objection to the schools element is that, as currently configured, it is POV. Rather than simply deleting it, I will move the material to its own page, and leave you and any others who come along to deal with matters there. David91 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: Some of the citations on this page are clearly fakes. All should be independently verified before being accepted. David91 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Shouldn't this article be titled Zero-Tolerance Policy in North American Schools.  It doesn't discuss zero-tolerance in any other context.  In addition, the article doesn't summarize the offences not tolerated by the schools (consumption of alcohol and the possession of weapons are given as examples).  As it stands, this article belongs within a more general entry on the North American education system, or within an entry on school disciplinary policies. There is scope for a separate entry, however, without a list of offences and a balanced assessment of the arguments for and against zero-tolerance, the entry should be reduced to a few lines and exported to another more general article. Pvazz 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: What is a 'zero tolerance policy', anyway? The examples given are of individual administrative acts, not of policies. Nearly all seem to be drawn from high schools in the USA. Is that coincidence?
When did 'zero tolerance policies' begin? What was the first?
This article is sadly lacking is substance.
::As to your complaint about the US-centric content, my conclusion is that other countries are less likely to adopt such rash policies.  If you can suggest any WP:Reliable sources about other countries' schools, please feel free to share them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Many policies were enacted after the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.
I was just going to fact-tag this, but it simply isn't true.  The CHS massacre was in 1999.  From my own personal experience, I can tell you that the State of Iowa had required every single public and private school to adopt a formal weapons policy no later than 1994, and the vast majority of schools were adopting the state's "recommended" (and IMO very poorly written) zero-tolerance policy.
I'm pleased to say that my school wasn't stupid enough to adopt the "recommended" policy -- one that actually prohibited law enforcement officers from carrying a weapon onto campus under any circumstances, in direct violation of state law -- but the suggested policy was about two paragraphs long and could be summarized in a single sentence:  possession of any 'weapon', including water pistols, results in mandatory expulsion (for students) or firing (for staff).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Story about a teenager punished for going to pick up a drunk friend.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/10/13/north-andover-high-punishes-teen-for-giving-drunken-pal-ride-home-from-party/
One one hand, it adds a bit of range to the cases cited in criticism, but on the other, she got sports-related penalties (can't play for few games, no longer captain), not even suspension/expulsion. I figured I'd stick this here and let more experienced heads decide. 75.182.99.60 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Would this source add anything of value to the page?

message: There are two problems with this sentence:
# There is no attempt to explain what constitutes "the right way", or why it is right (by some objective standard.
# There are no references to what the "many benefits" are.  ("many" is also a weasel word)
This is incompatible with a neutral point of view - it's more like advocacy (and original research, not reporting).
--CaritasUbi (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  However, if the policy is used in the right way, there are many benefits 

message: It's obvious that a lot of references on the page were added in around 2006 - many of them are out of date, or opinion pieces that have FUD about discipline or undisciplined kids. More content needed on efficacy and research, less on "claims" by proponents of zero-tolerance -- Aronzak (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Zero tolerance (schools). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091016165454/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_us/us_zero_tolerance_boy to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_us/us_zero_tolerance_boy
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091017070809/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_re_us/us_zero_tolerance_boy to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_re_us/us_zero_tolerance_boy
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One of many events of the kind already listed in this article, with no indication that this event will receive WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE sufficient for a separate article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that merging would be better than leaving the article in place, but I'm not sure this case merits mentioning anywhere on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this case, such as national attention, that would indicate lasting notability.  This sort of occurrence is not uncommon in the US(or anywhere). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[Escondido school knives case]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Zero tolerance (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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150626103635/https://reclaimingjournal.com/sites/default/files/journal-article-pdfs/22_4_Skiba.pdf to https://reclaimingjournal.com/sites/default/files/journal-article-pdfs/22_4_Skiba.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060125041215/http://www.ncjrs.org:80/works/ to http://www.ncjrs.org/works/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611111142/http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/humor/bruce-cameron/the-zero-intelligence-policy.html to http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/humor/bruce-cameron/the-zero-intelligence-policy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article first mentions Columbine as the precipitating factor, "The use of zero tolerance policies increased dramatically after the Columbine High School massacre, with principals declaring that safety concerns make them want zero tolerance for weapons."  However, the article fails to mention the Gun Free schools act of 1994, when congress authorized and made school funding subject to the adoption of zero tolerance policies.  Currently, the article gives the impression that there was no zero tolerance existing before 1999 and Columbine, while phrasing it cleverly the allow the possibility of earlier adoption.  
While I'm not an expert on these issues, I also am skeptical that zero tolerance was not in existence far earlier in private, particularly religious schools. No, strike that, I'm am certain similar policies existed in such places as early as the 1970s. Perhaps they were not labeled as "zero tolerance", but expulsions have long occurred in private schools for minute issues, a form of intolerance, which is a synonym for zero tolerance. It appears this article is vastly underestimating the amount of time that such school policies have existed, in actual practice. Gzuufy (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History -- Gun Free schools act of 1994 

message: 25 contains a dead link in it. Galladevo (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved   -- Calidum 14:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero tolerance (schools) →  – WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, this isn't a separate topic that happens to have the same name as Zero tolerance, it's a subset of "Zero tolerance" applying particularly to schools. Would be fine with a different natural disambiguation as long as we drop the parenthetical. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 October 2021 

message: I think that when we're writing about individual examples, we should restrict ourselves to incidents described in at least one reliable source as having involved a zero-tolerance policy.  Several of the listed examples were not described that way in any of the sources I could find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not every outrageous action is zero tolerance