Talk:Hatboro-Horsham Senior High School

Introduction

The section below violates the Wikipedia policy of maintaining a neutral viewpoint. Secondly, the information is stale. Changes in health, education and journalism law and a more lawsuit-savvy parent population would make it harder now for either event to occur to the extent each did. Also, the key players involved have been long gone. Thirdly, Lower Merion, Central Bucks, Council Rock, Wissahickon, and Souderton School Districts have all had their share of more recent potentially or actually criminal controversies. Lastly, the text below borders on harassment of a district which theoretically could launch a cease and desist order against Wikipedia and/or the poster (there is a recent case of another anonymous on-line forum that was held accountable for these types of posts via the ISP and keystroke tracking, and you've already shared some personal information about yourself). I'm sorry you had such a bad experience and I'm sure the school district will not be immune to future problems, but it is a public high school with a diverse student population. These posts reveal more about the poster in 2010 than the current school districtNuffsed2010 (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I graduated HH in 2002. So, I am unfamiliar with the current staff. However, I made note in earlier talks that Mr. Williams is apparently the principal of the school. That said, I find it odd that someone by the name of "DWilliams54," went ahead and deleted two very notable events in Hatboro Horsham history.

Mr. Williams; I find it detestable that you should go around and delete all of this information in a vain attempt to cover up the occasionally troubled past. The fact that a man who believes it's okay to go around and erase history to try to forget that bad times is running a high school, the high school I went to, is frightening.

Do you believe that, bescause the holocaust wasn't a very happy thing, and it happened a long time ago, that we should just forget it ever happened? I should hope not. So, then, why is it acceptable to attempt to forget about the history of a small school in a small town?

It's just sick.

More importantly, Mr. Williams has gone ahead and deleted the entirety of the talk page. So, I am restoring it to how it was before he went and edited things.

And, as a final note, Mr. Williams DID delete some things that needed deleting... Wikipedia is not a place for unverifiable content. However, the content I reintroduced not only IS verifiable, but it's also rather matter of fact- the actions taken were the actions taken.

Code of Conduct

Whoever you are that keeps deleting the code of conduct facts - You are a coward! Tell me who you are so the rest of the world can see who doesn't want the truth to be told! Are you a Thug in a suit? Lets keep the facts about the code of conduct not fiction. There is not a spec of proof that it helps any school district or any students! What it does is it allows for Zero foregiveness and actually creates friction between the students and administration! There is NO PROOF THAT IT DOES ANY GOOD! The School District has no right to be in the lives of students outside of school! 5/8/07

Uh-huh. Wikipedia is still not a soapbox. If you want to include facts, then feel free; but keep your personal commentary out of the article, since this is an encyclopedia. — Tonyfuchs1019 13:23, 11 May 2007

Anybody with a name like TonyFuchs has to be an idiot! The name speaks for it's self. Tony I see you like evolution, are you the missing link?

The Code of Conduct is a Controversie at Hatboro Horsham High School! The Fact is it has NOT done any good for Anyone since it was adopted. I have stated Only FACTS! Please lock the code of conduct so I don't have to re paste it everyday and I will!

Write it in a NPOV way, and I won't remove it. Bjewiki 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dstrees — Wikipedia is still not a soapbox. You're going to have to make a case as to why two students being suspended according to a prescriptive Code of Conduct is "a Controversie [sic]." The student-athletes did something that violated the Code; you've neglected to mention what that transgression was. And since the Code is prescriptive, all students joining extra-curricular activities are made aware of the policy. They're bound by it, by virtue of the fact that they decided to join an activity knowing that such a Code is in place. Further, a due process/appeals procedure is in place for students who feel that they were unjustly punished (I somehow doubt that this applies to your friends...that is, the pair of suspended wrestlers); the school is not a government body, nor is the policy a law. The school has the right to suspend anyone who knowingly breaks a prescriptive policy: simple as that. Oh, and the ad hominem attacks? The lowest form of argument and the weakest form of insult. I mean really; making fun of my name as if I had anything to do with choosing it? It might have been amusing if it weren't so pathetic. I also notice that you're demanding to know other people's names without offering yours: figures. Feel free "to re paste [this nonsense] everyday"; but don't be surprised when it gets removed each time until you (a) provide a citation that links to an article about the actual incident (you know; something more than just the Code itself), and (b) explain how it's at all controversial. — Tonyfuchs1019 00:23, 13 May 2007

---

Tony please excuse my grammar, I am just a hard working American citizen who thinks the Hatboro Horsham High School overstepped its bounds. A High School is not a prison, kids should be able to make mistakes without being crucified! These 2 wrestlers were never in trouble before! Plain and simple, a controversy is (dispute about contentious topic: disagreement on a contentious topic, strongly felt or expressed by all those concerned, or an instance of this Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) First of all since when should a school district have the power to suspend students from athletics because of an event that happened outside of school? The fact that a student code of conduct can follow an athlete or curricular activity member 24 hour a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and anywhere in the world IS CONTRAVERSIAL IN IT'S SELF! Worse yet is the fact these students were suspended on a citation had not yet been proven in court or were they ever! The point is, this is the United States of America, due process must be given before you can take away a right and if you go to a public school in the United States you have the right to participate in school sports and clubs.

The Hatboro Horsham Athletic page says it clearly; Quoting from it, "At Hatboro Horsham High School, our interscholastic athletic program is an integral part of the total educational program. Specifically, participation in athletics can: • provide an opportunity for peer approval and increased self-esteem • nurture in the athlete a sense of group participation and cooperation • develop the athletes’ respect and tolerance for the abilities and opinions of others • unify a school by fostering school spirit and a sense of identification for the student body • stimulate community interest and involvement in the entire school program"

You cannot separate the academic value athletics play in the total educational process. The school districts hide behind this seperation and it is my opinion that it's just a matter of time until the courts will prove them as one. Second, The information used to suspend the students was gotten by police by locking the minors in a room and forcing them to write a list of students who attended the party without the students being given their rights or their parents being present and were threatened by the police until the students gave a list of names of students who attended the party. The police used that list to give citations and the school suspended student from that list. The school should have issued suspensions to all the students equally or not at all! They rushed the wrestlers thru to hurt them and their potential scholarships before any of the other students. That was back in February of 2007 and some of the students on the list still have not been suspended and still have not been to trial(today is May13,2007). Pa High School Teachers and administrators are to teach democratic values to their students. You are innocent until proven guilty! The wrestlers were suspended before any hearing. Teachers and administrators are to treat all students equally and fairly, that was far from the case here. With some students a trial is still going on where is the fairness? All suspensions to athletes and club members should have taken place at the same time. They carried the suspensions out in a manner that would do the most harm to the wrestlers and that is a legitimate controversy! Dstrees 13:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two main problems with your inclusion of any of this "information". (1) It is unsourced, meaning that you haven't provided citation for an article that discusses the incident; and (2) the policy is prescriptive, meaning that every student who joins an activity is made aware of it before the policy would need to be implemented; those wrestlers knew the policy, and yet violated it anyway. If a student wants to join an extracurricular activity (sport or club), then there are a few conditions. One of those conditions is that the student becomes a representative of the school, and thus must behave in a way that reflects the school positively. If the wrestlers didn't violate the policy and are being unjustly punished, then they have an due procee/appeals procedure by which to address the miscarriage of justice; you don't seem to be implying that they are being unjustly punished, but rather selectively punished. That might be controversial, if you can provide citation to an article; but the more controversial topic would probably be why, exactly, the other offenders were given a pass while these two weren't. Your claim that the school arbitrarily wants to hurt these kids in particular seems specious, and doesn't stand up without citation. — Tonyfuchs1019 00:22, 14 May 2007

When over 30 students are cited in an incident the penalty handed out by the school district should be done in a way that is fair to all students involved! That was not done here! The timing of the penalties handed down to the wrestlers was mean spirited and before any trial had taken place. How is that OK? The school district had no hearing, they were the judge and jury and that's very controversial. Tony this is the United States of America and civil rights were violated here! The students should have been punished but equally, after a fair hearing and equally! The entire case was not handle in a professional manner. They handed out suspensions to certain people who they knew would hurt the most! That’s what was done and if the administrators don’t know enough to carry out justice equally and fairly they should be penalized!

Dstrees 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I changed "Subsequently, the newspaper's adviser, English teacher Robin Farr, was fired." to "Subsequently, the newspaper's adviser, English teacher Robin Farr, had her advising duties revoked." Ms. Farr was never fired out of the school district, she kept her job as an English teacher. She was only removed as adviser. Spychicr 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

POV-Check

I removed the POV-Check, becaue I took the POV content out of the controversy descriptions, and there was also no reason given for the POV-Check on the discussion page. 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Clubs...

Alright, I am a student of Hatboro Horsham High School, and I can personally attest to the fact that the Club list is messed up.

First off...

Jazzy Jazz Band? It should be Jazz Band, plain and simple. As a Jazz Trombone, this makes me want to smack someone.

Defence Against the Dark Arts? Some Harry Potter geek must have been here...

Fencing? Never heard of it, but it's a good idea.

Overall, the clubs are incomplete and corrupt. I intend to get a listing from Mr. Williams on the full list of clubs and fix it up.

207.103.47.111 00:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Ian Watson, Sophmore

Controversy and sources

Just a note about sources. According to WP:RS sources should be reliable. Blogs are not acceptable as sources because they don't have a proper publish procedure per WP:SELFPUB. WP:VER says that material that is likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who addes or restores the material. Arthurrh 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the sections again, because i wouldn't want to start an edit war. But let me ask some questions.

Which specific sources didn't you like? The morgan spurlock section had a source from the Philly Inquirer. True, there was also a source referencing spurlock's blog, but that was sourcing a sentence that said, "Spurlock posted an apology on his blog".

The two sources in the "Student Newspaper" seem to be okay, what's wrong with them? The same with the "Assisted Abortion" sections.

Bjewiki 17:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are specifically listed. If you have a source for a particular controversy item that is a reliable source, feel free to put that item back in. Student newspapers generally don't meet requirements of reliable sources, they are more in the line of WP:SELFPUB. "Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)

Huh? None of the sources was a student newspaper? The Morgan Spurlock thing had a source from the Philly inquirer! Bjewiki 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Above you said "two sources in the Student Newspaper" Arthurrh 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The section you removed was a controvery regarding the HH "Student Newspaper". There were two sources in that section (that were not from a student newspaper). Bjewiki 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Those two sources are advocacy groups and don't appear to meet the criteria in WP:RS. I understand the wikipedia guidelines for sources may be different than those used in other places, but reading the guidelines really helps out, if you haven't had a chance to do that yet. Arthurrh 20:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added back in the morgan spurlock section. It was adequately sourced before (A Philly Burbs newspaper article), though that link appears to be dead, so I found a different link. I changed the sentence dealing with Spurlock's apology, so that the only thing that the blog link sources is that he apologized. Bjewiki 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, kinda funny, I didn't even notice that the abortion article was from an pro-life advocacy group. In fact, I myself am pro-choice. However, it was the only article I could find on it, so I used it, as, despite any anticipated bias, it stated things just as they happened. 71.185.207.72 06:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I cleaned up the refs and added a references section so they can be used more easily. I did minor editing on both cases to bring them in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, namely the Spurlock issue mentioned details that are not covered in the reference article, making them "Original Research" by wikipedia definition. In the abortion case, the article talks about the lawsuit, without discussing the facts of the case, so we need to be sure the paragraph doesn't make any presumption of guilt or accuracy to the lawsuit, just report that it happened and what the basic issues were from a Neutral point of view. IE, from the given source, we know the complaint accused him of assisting with an abortion, but we don't know that this is true or accurate. And finally, the strange thing for some to learn about wikipedia is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" per WP:VER. This can become more tricky in the case of Biographies of Living Persons. I hope I've been able to assist in improving the article and addressing your concerns at the same time. Arthurrh 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed entirely. Of the three "sources", two are broken links, and the third is from a dated pro-life advocacy group ... this case should have been settled, yet there is no source nor content relative to the resolution of the suit. Frank (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no comments relative to my comment above, and I have again verified the unsourced notes, I removed this section. If it cannot be verified by an independant source, it has no business on this page. 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankjcapp (talk • contribs)

Location of controversy/notable alumni sections...

While I agree that controversy would not idealy be the first section (ultimately, more general information should be added to the beginning of the article), it seems to be pretty standard practice in college & high school article on wikipedia to put the list of notable alumni at the end of the article.

See: Upper Dublin High School, Episcopal_High_School_(Baton_Rouge), Westmoor_High_School, Junípero Serra High School (San Mateo, California), etc...

In other wordst, the real problem isn't that the controvery section is first, it's that there's some missing information that should be added before it. Bjewiki 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a single one of your examples shows a school that has a controversy section, so it's hard to see if the standard practice is to put it before or after notable alumni. The style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Sections_of_the_article doesn't list a controversy section. Currently the way the article is, it makes it the most important thing about the school, which I think is misleading. Arthurrh 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)