Talk:Hoover, Alabama

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

Hoover High School size

Hoover High school is the largest high school in the state.

No, Hoover High School is the 2nd largest in the state behind Bob Jones in Madison, AL. They do alternate from year to year however.

Uhh, No Hoover High School with over 3000 students and the MOST AREA is the Largest High School in Alabama. I dont think Hoover High's Building contracts and expands every year. Hoover High currently is the Largest meaning most building space in the state of Alabama.Locust43 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree it has the most square footage, but student wise, Bob Jones has more. Hoover most definately does not have 3000. Hoover has more around 2000.

Hoover High only had 2119 students in the 2003-2004 year.[1] I couldn't find more updated numbers on their website. However, I agree that its unlikely that Hoover has 3000 students. ClarkBHM 01:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You must not work there....Locust43 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I work at the High School and the Amount of kids this year is around 3000 actualy, you can go there and verify if you want.

I'm not doubting that Hoover High School has a lot of kids, even that it may have 3000. However, on Wikipedia, everything must be verified. Remember, there is no original research. If you can find an online source that states the current population of the school, please post it. Otherwise, I think we should leave it like this. ClarkBHM 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you could sign your comments in the the future with ~~~~, it would help tremendously. Thanks! ClarkBHM 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ill get you the Direct Contact to the Hoover City Board Of Educations Superintendent's Contact information if you must have. This year it is true and verifiable that they have around 3,000 and it is the largest school in the State Of Alabama and I think what I posted about this year should stay, dont edit it, This is the ENTIRE REASON they are building a new Freshman Center just for 9th Grade to REDUCE the size of the High School.Locust43 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's all great and well. When they post it to a webpage somewhere, it can be used. Until that time, contacting the school board directly violates WP:NOR. Please take a few moments to read that policy and consider it. We want something we can link to; we can't link to your email.ClarkBHM 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Until that time WE WILL NOT post about the student body size until I can get some freaking socuments, I will have my attorneys Notarize a statement from the BOE and mail it to you if need be for god sakes

I don't care if its notorized by the pope and witnessed by twenty bishops. You have to verify your information without engaging in original research. (See WP:V and WP:NOR) Also, please stop removing other factual information. (See WP:POINT). ClarkBHM 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(3rd Opinion) It doesn't have to be a website to be a reference, and making a phone call or other contact is not original research. (Original research would be standing outside the school door and tallying the kids that walk in, or some such.) In fact, making direct contacts when necessary is good encyclopedia work. The website is apparently a year out of date, so Locust's assertion is a possibility. In any case, the school's phone number is prominently displayed on its website. Surely someone (i.e. not Locust) has a cell phone with nationwide calling that could spare a minute or two of talk time to check this out. In the meantime, since the article unambiguously states that the 2119 number is from 2004, it is not incorrect. But it could be updated pretty easily just by some simple research. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read through Wikipedia:No original research. The information has to be published elsewhere to be considered a primary source. Since this information is not published elsewhere, it is original research. You're right in that it doesn't have to be a website. It could be a book or reputable journal or newspaper, but it has to be something. Fagstein 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that, and I'm having a conniption on the talk page as to just how stupid the justification for that is. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA)

OK SINCE NOT ALL INTERNET INFO IS FREAKING CORRECT!!!! DONT POST ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS AT THE SCOOL EVER. JUST THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND IT DOESNT MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE IT WAS IN 2004, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THEN, THIS IS NOW. GOSH, ILL HAVE MY NEIGHBOR PUSLISH AN ARTICLE IN THE BIRMINGHAM NEWS IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT BACK OFF CLARKBHM, NOBODY CARES AND LEAVE ME ALONE FOR GOODNESS SAKES, —This unsigned comment was added by Locust43 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 March 2006.

School Size

I have e-mailed the Hoover City School system about the size matter and will post it when it come, for now please just leave the page as it is. Thanks Locust43 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The page is being left at the last verified count of 2119 until verifiable information is provided which counteracts this. Fagstein 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Just a comment, WP:Verifiability does not require an online source for verification, but the source does need to be something that people could reasonably check up on. Surely enrollment statistics are reported to the the state and that report would be citable. In my opinion, a statement made by an official of the school system would be fine as well, since the office is an official body and would be able to provide that information to any researcher as a matter of course. Now if their figure differed from published accounts to an unexplainable degree, there would be a legitimate question requiring more evidence. What would be best is, if in contacting the office, you were to inquire as to where up-to-date official enrollment records should be found. --Dystopos 06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And one more comment. All Wikipedia editors are required to treat each other with civility. This is not the place for conniptions. --Dystopos 06:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that WP:Verifiability does not require an online source. In reviewing WP:Verifiability, it states three rules as policy: "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

In this situation, the population of the school has not been published by a reputable source, but instead is being determined by independent research by Locust43. The editor seeking to add the new material, Locust43, cannot or will not cite a reputable source, merely indicating that "he knows" and that should be good enough. He hasn't even provided a firm number but merely states that it's "over 3000". Finally, the obligation is on Locust43 to provide the reputable source.

I think the key wording is "published by reputable sources". I don't believe that merely talking to a school official on the phone or getting a letter from the school board constitutes publication. Getting a copy of state records, finding it on their website, seeing it a newspaper surely would constitute publication.

The situation isn't helped when Locust43 removes the existing verified and cited data specifying the student population in 2004. He's replacing good sourced information with bad unsourced information. When he removes the whole topic altogether, he's being disruptive in order to make his point.

I believe the best way to proceed is to keep the student population data from 2004 until we can update it with properly sourced data. I agree with Dystopos that the best way of obtaining this may be to inquire where up-to-date official enrollment records are published. ClarkBHM 06:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Fagstein 08:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I could.......Locust43 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The proposal to get an official figure from an official of the school rises to a point between verifiability and original research, and I would think closer to verifiability as long as the school is there. After all, enrollment is one of the elementary statistics that they have to keep and report. Citing the report would be the traditional way to provide a reference, but reports with limited circulation aren't any easier to verify than figures provided by the office. In any case, let's agree to assume that all editors are trying to act in good faith, even if emotions are clouding judgment from time to time. The issue is easily resolved and no one needs to be excoriated. --Dystopos 21:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I really can't make this clearer: It needs to be published, and by a reliable source. Unless this is done, it's not verifiable. A report from a school to its school board doesn't qualify unless it's been made public. Fagstein 08:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You really don't have to make it clearer. A report from a public school to a public school board is public by its nature. There's a whole universe of fact checking out there that depends on using reliable official sources to provide reliable verifiable and published information that is of little journalistic interest and that Google doesn't even scratch. --Dystopos 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about whether the document is "public" (as in it's the property of a government institution), but whether it has been "published" (as in announced to the public). If it hasn't been published, it's not considered verifiable. Fagstein 01:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A report that is made publicly available has, in every meaningful sense, been published. In any event we're chasing shadows here as no one has yet stepped up with any source for the "3000" figure. --Dystopos 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for sharing unusefull info. I really dont care, thats great and all but you didnt read, I know someone who works at Bham News and they will be glad to get VERIFIABLE INFO AND PUBLISH IT. KKLocust43 21:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do that. It would be great if the Birmingham News would publish it. I searched through the google cache of the Birmingham News and found this article which may shed some light on this. The article, dated August 14, 2005, states that the population is 2,200, but I bet their rounding. In either case, this is 800 off of the 3000 that was claimed. ClarkBHM 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2200 number should be about right. The 2006-2008 Alabama High School Athletic Association Classification lists enrollment figures for grades 10-12 for the fourth month of the 2005-2006 school year (see AHSAA Bulletin, page 4, Central Board, October 22 Meeting (pdf)). By that source, Hoover's 10-12 enrollment is 1639. It is thus next to impossible that Hoover High has anywhere near 3000 students. -- Lissoy 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears that my recent change to have the verified information for the entire school district has appeased all sides to the argument. Thanks for everyone's assistance. ClarkBHM 15:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, the U.S. Department of Education has enrollment (and other) statistics for (just about?) every school in the U.S. Earthsound 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Please dont remove or change the Education or 911 Page much becuase it has now all comepletely VERIFIABLE CITED SOURCES. Thanks To PeicesLocust43 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing the grunt work of finding sources, and for letting us know. Other editors are advised by common sense and by Wikipedia policy not to go nuts deleting verifiable content. (Wikipedia:Editing policy). You should be aware that your request, however, is inconsistent with the GFDL license and with Wikipedia's policy on the "ownership of articles" (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). If you disapprove of the terms of the GFDL, then you need to avoid submitting content to Wikipedia. --Dystopos 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

I've included an [:Image:The Riverchase Galleria.jpg image of the Galleria] as it is the most iconic representation of Hoover. I also resized the 911 call center image to a thumbnail size to bring it inline with the rest of wikipedia. That picture may soon be removed however as it may violate copyright law. We'll have to wait and see.ClarkBHM 15:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a copyright tag, please somone assist me in finding the right onw if its not right.Locust43 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• The source of that image is here: geocities.com/bham_design/hoover.html and the notice on that site is that all content is ©Randy Sandford. Do you have any reason to believe that Mr Sandford has released this photograph for 'any use whatsoever' as your tag indicates? --Dystopos 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm unfamiliar with this article but the recent uncited additions alledging William Hoover's connections to the Ku Klux Klan sound very POV to me. Until either a citation has been made or the language is cleaned up, I'm going to hit the article with a NPOV tag. Trusilver 17:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is for the City of Hoover, not the history of the man William H. Hoover. Please create a new article for William H. Hoover to include detailed history and info on the man. This information should be removed from this article about the City of Hoover. No article on a city should include this level of detail about the history of a specific person.

Sources for Galleria

I don't think the galleria website is a reliable source to depend on when saying the Galleria is the largest tourist attraction in the state. I have removed that line pending better WP:V. JodyB _talk 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoover's use of alternative fuels?

Shouldn't it be included in the article? Earthsound 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hoover, Alabama. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20141129082905/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129082905/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129082905/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

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) 21:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tone

As an outside reviewer, I think this article goes on a bit too much in booster/marketing mode: do readers really need to know about the list of community participation activities by Fire Dept. members? consider toning it down. It's a wealthy community; that's obvious.Parkwells (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)