Talk:La Salle College High School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why do we need to delete controvery?

Why has this selection been deleted? Someone please fix it, thanks alot.

More on "Recent Events"

There was some bias in the recent edits. Wikipedia is not supposed to offer opinions on the matter, like "Mr. Marchese was an excellent communicator" or "the students actions were appalling." --Brett 01:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely some PoV issues. User:Jfingers88 23:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stage Crew

While I may concede that the high school itself is notable given its history and alumni, its stage crew and its members are not. I'm removing this section as not notable -- Shinmawa 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While I may concede that you can be forgiven your idiocy based on your ignorance, your deletion of that information cannot. I wish I could remove you for being unnecessary -- Plunkettt 18:53, 8 Janurar 2006 (UTC)

• Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. -- Shinmawa 20:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Plunkett --Danf 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bosack arguably did invent the internet when he invented the router which enabled connections via two computers and Ip addresses --Brett 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

1) He didn't invent the router. Leonard Kleinrock did in 1961 (when Bosack would have been about 10 years old). Later, Lawrence Roberts helped perfect the technology. In fact, he didn't even invent Cisco's first router product. From the Cisco Systems article:

Bosack adapted multiple-protocol router software originally written by William Yeager, another staff employee who had begun the work years before Bosack arrived from the University of Pennsylvania [...] While Cisco was not the first company to develop and sell a router (a device that forwards computer traffic from one network to another), it did create the first commercially successful multi-protocol router to allow previously incompatible computers to communicate using different network protocols. As the Internet Protocol (IP) has become a standard, the importance of multi-protocol routing as a function has declined.

2) The Internet began as a government program run by DARPA in the 60's, which Bosack never had any relation with. Cisco Systems didn't come into being until 1986... 20 years later.

3) The four people credited with "inventing" the Internet are: Leo Kleinrock, Lawrence Roberts, Robert Kahn, and Vinton Cerf. Some people also credit J. C. R. Licklider as well. All these people did their work before Bosack even graduated from your high school. Vint Cerf is usually the one who is given the moniker "Father of the Internet".

I'm going to re-remove that phrase and ask that you do not re-add it unless you can come up with something that meets Wikipedia's verifiability standard. -- Shinmawa 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets go

Off your 1. I will concede that he was not the sole inventor of the internet, but the idea of a multi-protocol router was his and it was critical to the idea of the internet.

"Founding legends are a specialty of Silicon Valley, and none is more appealing than that of Cisco Systems: i/In the 1980s a young Stanford University couple invent the multiprotocol router and starts Cisco in their living room, using their own credit cards for financing.

Repeated for years by Cisco's marketers and the news media (including the Mercury News), the story of the couple, Leonard Bosack and Sandy K. Lerner, mirrors the Silicon Valley dream: Come up with a breakthrough, found a company and become a millionaire.

But the Cisco legend is incomplete. It omits many people who helped develop the multiprotocol router, a device critical to the early Internet. It omits a battle with Stanford that almost killed Cisco at birth over charges that the founders used technology that belonged to Stanford to start their business.

http://pdp10.nocrew.org/docs/cisco.html

At the point where I win that the device was critical to the internet then he played a major role in the invention of the internet. This means that because Bosack played a critical role in the creation of the internet then he can be attributed as one of the traditional founders of the internet.

Group your 2 and 3. This is all irrelevant, there is many than one person who invented the modern internet as we know it today. There are many people, including Bosack, who can be said to have invented the modern internet.

I am changing it to say that he was a key inventor of the internet. please don't change it unless you can prove that without the multi-protocl router we would have the internet as we know it today.

Okay: The Internet uses one and only one networking protocol suite: IP. He didn't invent that. He didn't invent the router for it. In fact, multi-protocol routers are hardly ever used anymore, since everyone now uses IP. In other words, a multi-protocol router is not needed for the Internet to work. So, let me explain to you what Bosack sold (with technology he took from Stanford).

Before TCP/IP became ubiquitous, there were many many different heterogeneous networking protocols including PUP, XNS and CHAOSnet. What the multi-protocol router did was allow systems using one protocol to communicate to those using another protocol. IP was just one of a number of different protocols that this router supported. To claim that this made Bosack the inventor of the Internet would also make him the "inventor" of dozens of other networks as well. What Cisco's router did was enable computers that couldn't natively "speak" IP communicate with those that did. Was this important? Absolutely! It probably sped up commercial acceptance of the Internet by a couple of years. Did that make him the inventor of the Internet? No more than AT&T's efforts made it inventor of the telephone.

I further challenge any notion that Bosack invented the multiprotcol router. I quote from "A Perspective on the Origins of Cisco Systems":

Thus, by time Bosack had access to the router source code in 1985, multiple-protocol routers were a relatively mature technology. For the "nerds" among us, that code routed PUP, XNS, IP, and CHAOSnet protocols. The software was licensed by Bosack and Lerner on behalf of Cisco Systems in 1986, through the Stanford Office of Technology Licensing. Yeager is named in the agreement document as the principle developer/inventor, and received 85% of the royalty distribution (which he contributed to the SUMEX project to support further research). Bosack's and Lerner's contributions lay in the important (and risky) realization that this technology could be made into a commercial venture - and credit for that should not be denied. Still, Yeager never benefited from that venture (nor was he given an opportunity to by the organizers of Cisco Systems).

Even the text you quoted supports this:

But the Cisco legend is incomplete. It omits many people who helped develop the multiprotocol router, a device critical to the early Internet. It omits a battle with Stanford that almost killed Cisco at birth over charges that the founders used technology that belonged to Stanford to start their business

Later, in the same article, you completely left out the part that openly contracts your POV:

...staff members and graduate students developed the technology to link the computer systems in Stanford's schools and departments so they could all talk to one another. Their crowning creation was a small box that functioned as a multiprotocol router, so named because it enabled computers of varied make, with different protocols, to communicate and to access the early Internet. [...] The box's computer board was one that a graduate student, Andy Bechtolsheim, had designed for a network workstation for engineers (he went on to found Sun Microsystems). The box contained networking boards developed by several staff members and graduate students, including Bosack. The box's software -- a crucial component -- was written at Stanford's medical school by William Yeager, a staff research engineer.

So, at best, Bosack was a minor member of a team of people at Stanford. Are you also willing to give Yeager the same credit as Bosack? How about Andy Bechtolsheim? How about Stanford University, who actually paid for all this? Can you find anyone, anywhere, that cites Bosack as an "inventor of the Internet"? Not even Tim Berners-Lee (invented the Web) is given that distinction. So far, the only person who I can find who claims this is you, a violation of No Original Research. What I'm asking for is very simple. All you need to do is cite one source, just one, that gives him that moniker in light of the mountains of opposing citations I've given you. -- Shinmawa 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore invented the internet... WookMuff 09:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) ;)

DISCLAIMER

(this disclaimer was taken from the main page and placed here by User:Looper5920, he however did not write it) Students from La Salle have reportedly been threatened with expulsion for making additions to this very page. Said additions were seen by Mr. Christopher M. Carabello as possibly portraying a negative aspect of the school to prospective students. Mr. Carabello's actions have created somewhat of a controversy at La Salle. His ban on "unauthorized" edits to this page by students also raises questions about Wikipedia in general and, specifically, the validity of this entry. Is this page supposed to be an encylopedia article which accuratly reflects the nature the school or simply an advertisment for La Salle? Should we let politicians, or celebrities, author their own entries, forbidding "unauthorized" edits by fans or detractors? Would a self-authored page live up to Wikipedia's accuracy standards? These are all important questions. For now, it should be noted to all reading this page that the majority of the presented content was authored, requested, or inspected by La Salle's Director of Communications and Public Relations, Mr. Christoper M. Carabello. Mr. Carabello has removed any information he did not approve of and has forbidden further edits that do not meet his approval.

Mr Carabello has the right to edit like anyone else as long as he follows the Wikipedia guidelines. If he starts making changes to the page that others as a whole do not agree with then he will be referred to an administrator. For the record I am not a LaSalle student or Alumni just someone who edits articles on Philadelphia Catholic High Schools. --Looper5920 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't browbeating and blackmail of a fellow Wikipedian against Wiki policy?

It hasn't happened on this page that I can see. If you continue to go back and forth on edits than invoke the 3RR and see an administrator. Also, the school can not do anything to you for editing this website. If they say they can they are full of S---. Also, they have no way to know who is editing as they cannot determine User names and IP address. LaSalle has no say whatsoever over the content on this page. They are more than welcome to add and edit like everyone else as long as it is done in good faith and by the guidelines--Looper5920 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The existence of this article is causing a bit of a stir at the school.

Personally as a senior at LaSalle I do find the whole "recent events" section to be rather pointless. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia; these are minor, silly grievances that students would have at any typical school, it's worded like a section on human rights in an article on a country or something, which has nothing to do with silly little things like the disallowance of wearing golf shirts. Imagine if every local high school's article had a section like this! This would be fine content for the school newspaper, or a student wiki, or something along those lines; not an encyclopedia. I suggest it be removed on these grounds.

Also, while the school technically has no right to control what students write on here, being a private school they do have the right to discipline students in-school for harming the school's reputation, for the same reasons you could get suspended/expelled if you committed a crime or the like. Additionally if the edits were performed in school, they do directly go against the school network's AUP, which is even more serious; however as I said they need not have been performed in school for disciplinary action to result. -Francis

Agreed. Go ahead and remove them. If people want to put them back then they can argue for it on this page. If the changes were done on a school computer then they could do something to you but they cannot get you for anything done in the privacy of your home.--Looper5920 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the recent events section is not only a section of pertinent information, but one renamed and revised by the Office of Communications and Public Relations at La Salle. Therefore, it has been reinstated. Furthermore, while I personally advise against updating this article from within school, La Salle's Internet Acceptable Use Policy does not prohibit such actions. While the policy is left vague with a "this includes, but is not limited to" statement and can therefore be interpreted differently, there is no condition against updating a site whose content is licensed by the GFDL in which there is no libel, slander, fraud, etc. However, this is a moot point for the time being, considering the IP address of the router at La Salle has been blocked until 9:09 GMT, February 28, 2006. ~ Anonymous

Looper5920, with your agreement I have removed them. I have also created an account to try to distinguish myself from the various people reverting, I do agree that conflicts such as this should mediated on the talk page instead of the mindless reverting that both sides have been performing. I invite debate over whether this removal was justified, however I believe my position is reasonable.

Also, Anonymous, I have been learning about security policies and AUPs in network security class, and I have analyzed the AUP for myself; while I do not have it on me at the moment for the exact quote, it has a kind of "catch-all" statement that anything "inconsistent with the mission of" the school is prohibited; this broad "CYA" clause does catch this kind of activity. Also the GFDL does not have anything to do with this at all. -Francis (now Puddingpop)

First, these are not listing of “minor silly grievances.” That calls for speculation and a verdict to be reached. Second, [ed. note: those terms were used incorrectly; you wanted to say that calling them minor and silly represents a biased Point of View (POV) --James S. 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)] that assumes that they are even grievances. Determining that they are grievances calls for a biased opinion which is prohibited by Wikipedia. You talk about how these things are trivial, but how is 2 people’s lives being ruined something that does not deserve at least a sentence? A student wiki doesn’t exist and the wisterian is censored that could never be published there. these issues do not happen in near the magnitude they are happening at La Salle. And when these issues do happen at other schools, they do get noted in their wikipedias. I vite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutztown_High_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Allegheny_High_School_%28Wexford%2C_Pennsylvania%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenbrook_North_High_School. These are just three examples that I was able to quickly retrieve. There will be more if we want to find them. What is wrong with other high schools having information on similar issues? There is no “limit” on the amount of information wikipedia can hold, there is no reason not to put it in there. The state of prominent school policy is worth mentioning. They’re the primary characteristic of the school.

Also, wiki guidelines say "wikipedia accepts and PROMOTES commentary on controversial issues under a given topic provided they are expressed from a neutral perspective" add " and "Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." and " Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article." If you want to put the opposing point of view in you can, but don't delete what already exists

Keep in mind that the three high schools you mentioned were far more significant. One had 13 students that committed felonies, another was a huge hazing incident, and another was a lawsuit involving the ACLU. This is far different than "2 people's lives getting ruined" because they goofed off big time on a retreat and faced the consequences, or speculation about changes the dress code. I am also not even arguing in favor of the new administration's rules; myself I can't stand most of the new regulations. I am arguing that these are just minor, nerdy details that aren't worth putting into Wikipedia. - Puddingpop

Lets look at this contextually: First lets look at the Kutztown model. They were not convicted of the felonies, so therefore they did nothing more than violate school policies. That’s all we are talkimg about with the La Salle Wikipedia. It was 13 people who were expelled The Allegheny Model is even better because it was not a major incident. And it also stayed mostly internal at the school. And even if the ACLU got involved, we could still get the ACLU involved in this case.

Wheres the brightline here, what is a fair disctinction of how many people need to be removed in order for it to be wikipedia worthy? Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say that any person being asked to leave by a school deserves to be on the Wikipedia. Its also the uniqueness of the withdrawing that is important. Not only did they leave, but the article also notes that the motives might have been the administration trying to “lay down the law.”

Next, when you delete the entirety of the “recent events” section, you are deleting the entire thing. You can’t just pick and choose parts you agree and disagree with when you remove the entire thing. Tuition increases is notable, others schools wikis have that. Dress codes are also noted on other schools wikis.

I think the best way to evaluate whether it is relavant or not is to use the standards mentioned above, which is in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines section. Read that and the previous analysis (which you concede is true) and you will see why it is justified.

Upon a thorough evaluation of the recent events section, you will notice that none of the wikipedia guidelines are violated in the presentation of those events. Wikipedia does not attempt to directly redefine what constitutes a significant recent event as long as the event is documented properly, factual information is presented, and the implications of the event are noted in a manner that reflects an objective view of the issue. Also, the fact that members of the administration are participating in the debate, and working to present what they feel is an "accurate" perspectives testify to the controversial nature of the issues at hand.

I will definitely admit that what the administration has been doing is not helping, just deleting the section as fast as someone else reverts it again, and trying to protect what they are treating as "their" page. Also please keep in mind that it is not that I "agree" or "disagree" with these points, but rather that I think they are trivial. Rereading the section I agree that some parts are notable, like the dress code and tuition increases, but a "cafeteria boycott" from last year that "many students chose not to partake in"? I do now agree that while some parts of the section have merit and should it not be deleted outright, I still do think it should be revised. I guess though if none of the Wikipedia guidelines were violated, and Wikipedia really does want to deal with the most trivial local matters, I really do have no argument. -Puddingpop

School Policy regarding this Wikipedia

I had a meeting today with Mr. Stanczak and Mr. Marchese. I am informing you of a. my responsibilty on this Wikipedia; b. The students responsibilty regarding this site ACCORDING TO WHAT THE SCHOOL HAS SAID and c. to inform wiki admins of the official school position.

a. First, they determined that because I had created the website, it is now my responsibilty to make sure every aspect of information that is featured on the website is correct, a "fact checker" if you will. The administration was more concerned with inaccurate information being published rather than facts that are true but could be seen as controversial. They also wish to prevent a "negative bias" from overcoming the site and it becoming a studebnt forum to express grievences with policy. I agree with this idea. Wikipedia is no place for bias or opinion (especially on the main page). As such, I will act, under Marchese's order and the fear of expulsion, in their desired precedent and try my best to make sure only factual information is published.

b. Students should be aware that because La Salle is a private school, it is not bound by the first amendment protecting free speech. With that said, the administration has not forbidden edits of the "recent events section" (nor this page in general). They do not officially endorse it, either. However, it would be in everyone's best interest to not publish incorrect information, for fear of backlash if they find out who you are. Granted, it will be difficult, they will need to subpoena your IP address, but if it is not true then it will be promptly deleted by either myself or someone else. Also, please refrain from ad hominem attacks on the administration. While it has been Wikipedia's policy to request that people not do this anymore, it will only create more commotion at La Salle. Finally, let me also address that many interperate the "Recent Events Section" as a listing of grievences. That is not what it is, nor should it become. If you want to change school policy, this is not the place to do it. For all you rebels out there, have a chat with Mr. Marchese, his door is always open (except when he was talking with me...haha).

c. Wikipedia Administrators - I apoligize if I am "overstepping" my jurisdiction here, because I realize I pretty much have none, in saying this regarding La Salle wiki. However, the administration has placed responsibility on me to make sure it only contains factual information. I will most likely be disciplined if I do not comply with their requests/orders. Like I said, I apoligize for overstepping my jurisdiction here, but it is almost a "fact of life" when a site of this nature is created by someone who is a member of the school. I also want to prevent any further repercussions by the administration. As you have always done, I request you delete any ad hominem attacks on the main page, because the school will ultimately place blame on myself if thse are allowed to stand, as well as any other infactual information.

If any students want to discuss this more in depth with me, my AIM is fish11414. I realize it may seem like I am conceding here, but I am really not. I was not suspended, expelled, or removed from the debate team. The Wiki will still go strong. But don't make it a bigger deal then it needs to be.

- fish114

I support the above statement. The controversy about this article has gotten out of hand. It's merely an encyclopedia entry, and if kept that way, is not subject to controversy. I also encourage that any questions be directed towards Mr. Marchese. I personally intend to take advantage of this "open-door policy" myself come Monday morning. In the meantime, I can be contacted at lasallian.wiki.editor@gmail.com, or on AIM at lasallianwiki.

- Anonymous

• The issue is that no organization, least of all the school itself, has control over its Wikipedia entry. I would suggest that you retract any assurance you've given that the site content will be acceptable to them or anyone else, because you have no way of guaranteeing that, even given your best efforts something might slip in. Something that anyone can edit, can be at any time made offensive. I would not want you expelled if the infamous penis vandal were to strike two minutes before the administration visited their school's Wikipedia entry. I support and agree with, obviously, the idea that only factual information be placed on this article - as that is the basis of an encyclopedia... but what happens when someone puts a "fact" here that the administration claims isn't actually a fact? We can't just delete it on the whim of the administration. The solution is to strip everything down to find the neutral facts. FCYTravis 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if I do that I may be removed from the school, thus I have no choice if I wish to stay at La Salle. How do you suggest I respond?

• • Agree with Travis on this one. The school has no authority in this case and obviously does not believe that an informative, NPOV article can be created without their oversight. It is a bit scary how little faith they place in the students they are educating especially with the huge sums of money your parents pay for you to attend. They are employing scare tactics and trying to play big brother when they do not have the authority to do so. If you create a legit article you have no say in what others try to do to it. If they care so much then they should watch it. What happens when you leave La Salle? Is some poor schlub randomly chosen and held accountable for what appears on the site? What happens if you go on vacation for a week and something is slipped in there while you away? Rescind your assurance and go on with your life worrying about more important things than this garbage. On a side note, I have never met any administrators at LaSalle but I have visions of John Lithgow from Footloose in my head.--Looper5920 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Fish, I would suggest you try and let Mr. Marchese know that no one person can control a Wikipedia article, either by policy or by practicality. The simple fact that anyone can edit this entry means that anything, at any time, can change in it, and although we try to revert obvious vandalism, we can't guarantee anything. Your guarantee, if anything, puts you in more danger, because if someone does make a change while you aren't looking, they're going to tell you "OMG why didn't you fix it?" Take a look at WP:OWN and the site disclaimer, and print them out to show your principal that, while you may have the best intentions in mind, you can't possibly be asked to control what happens on this Wikipedia page because it just won't work. And, while there's nothing controversial at this point, should the administration at some future date want something removed they don't like, they might well ask you to act as their pawn, which is going to get you caught between them and Wikipedia policy. If you remove something that could be legitimate on the basis that the administration doesn't want it there, and the person adding the information complains and requests community assistance and consensus, it's likely their complaint will be backed up by the community, based on Wikipedia policy, and the information will be added anyway, no matter what the administration wants. FCYTravis 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've been blocking congress, so schools are small fry ;-) Anyway, two options are 1: Delete the article (that way the problem goes away by itself) 2: Get the contact info of Mr Marchese in my hands per email (I'd like to keep that private), so that someone from the foundation can contact him. 3: Block you so that you can wash your hands of the matter. Ok, that's 3, 3 options are...

In the mean time we can also just make this an NPOV article like any other wikipedia article. In all cases, the editorial control and end responsibility lie with wikipedia not with you, end of story. So no worries! :-) Kim Bruning 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please resend the E-mail with the directors address? I had it earlier, but somehow it's vanished from my inbox. I'm going to look into this asap Kim Bruning 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think in the mean time, Fish114 should not be able to edit. He cannot be held responsible for the content on a site he cannot access. The idea of him being held personally responsible is just too worrying, and is not right for Wikipedia. For his sake, I am banning him until this is resolved. The school should contact Wikimedia directly if they have concerns that they wish to discuss. They can do this by mailing info-en@wikimedia.org (FAO Lisa Carter) -- sannse (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've gone through the article bringing it into line with the MoS, correcting a host of Wikilinks (did no-one check them? Does the school really have a team competing in Track & Field?). One large section was clearly inappropriate in an encyclopædia article: the recent Events section. It read like a school newspaper. I'm not sure about the extensive (and tedious to anyone outside the school) list of sporting achievements, but let that pass. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Would editors not revert changes to correct Wikipedia style? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

When referring to the graduation year of alumni, it follows a common form. If Joe Shmoe graduated in 2006, his name is listed Joe Shmoe '06. That's why the Notable alumni section is like that.

See reasons above for the justification behind the Recent Events Section. And it really isn't like a school newspaper, because; a. this stuff won't get printed in a school newspaper b. It doesn't endorse opinions or offer a point of view. I will concede that not everything in it is 100% relevant, but deleting the entire section seems a bit unjustified. Maybe you could talk about each aspect individually. Also, your profile indicates that you would take "votes" to determine the neccessity of something. Clearly there is a consensus that this is relevant (and important). Brett 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't use abbreviations except in tables or infoboxes (and not always then). Clarity to an international audience is what we aim for. Someone reverted my corrections with the claim that the abbreviation is what the MoS dictates; where was this found? I could see no mention, but it's a large document. the nearest I could get to a ruling Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/example, which (unlike the equivalent school project) gives an example, in which alumni dates are given in full.

I couldn't see that any of it was encyclopædic; do you really think that it was? That a school newspaper wouldn't print some of it depnds on the school, I should imagine, and is iny case irrelevant. I'm not sure where you got the idea about votes, but that's not how we do things. Finding consensus is important, but I doubt very much that you'd find many people in the Wikipedia community to agree that "recent events" at a school are significant enough to belong. You're welcome to test that by asking for opinions, of course.

You might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1. See above wiki articles cited that have recent events in them, and are allowed to stand 2. we have asked for a general opinion about whether it is neccessary. see above. 3. its not irrelevant if you say its something that would be put into a school newspaper, but it is not allowed to be placed in a school newspaper. see the problem? 4. i get the idea about votes from your moderator policy, and I quote "My approach, therefore, unless there's some genuine reason to delete, such as a prank article, is either not to get involved in such votes on people, or (if I can see a good argument against deletion) to vote to keep." 5. Once again, I agree that bnot everything may be 100% relevant, but you should probably not blanker delete everything. the better choice would be to analyze each section individually. You have failed to do this, instead you just go deleting everything that doesn't pass your litmus test. Brett 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the recent events section should be allowed to remain on the site; most of the recent events issues actually play into fundamental questions about the school's policy and approach to student-administration interaction which is necessary to provide a holistic view of how the school itself operates. The fact that the information is on wikipedia gives the recent events section, as stated by Brett, an objective view of events that a school newspaper could not provide to its own students, let alone the "international community."

The continual changes to the alumni section need to stop. Mel Etitis, if you would stop making my life more difficult and just go back to editing another article needlessly, it would be greatly appreciated. My reasoning for this is that, at La Salle, all alumni names are followed by their year numbers. Taking an example off of the school website is Mr. Christopher M. Carabello '82. Check http://www.lschs.org/page.cfm?id=222&ddid=&keyword=carabello to verify this.

-- lasallian.wiki.editor

You have no business demanding that any particular editor stop editing this; by Wikipedia policy, nobody "owns" this article, and all editors are allowed to participate in editing it. As for the year numbers, I prefer Mel's style myself, with four-digit years; the "'82" style will become ambiguous as the years and centuries move on. Since the school is already over 100 years old, there is already the potential for ambiguity; the "class of '61" could be 1861 or 1961. Eventually, it could be 2061 as well. *Dan T.* 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that the school's preferred style doesn't determine ours. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent events removed

I've removed the section again; if Fish114 is under a serious stricture from the school to make sure this article is factual, it would be better to check out new sections here or on a subpage, instead of throwing them live into the article. A lot of the stuff in that section is difficult/impossible to verify, and hardly encyclopedic. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1. not new sections - been up for a while 2. it is factual. According to Wikipedia's standards for Verifiability, each aspect meets it definition of what a "reputable source is." I quote, "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." 3. see above for why its encyclopediac Brett 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The section is simply unencyclopædic; it is, to repeat myself, the sort of thing one might find in a school newspaper. I've pointed you towards the Wikipedia project on schools; I take it that you haven't bothered to look at it?

The section was replaced with an edit summary claiming that I hadn't bothered to respond to a defence of it on this page. Looking above, I seem to have been the last person to post a message in that debate, and it's in fact my position which awaits a rebuttal. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Brett, we need sources for at least the following material:

However, Student malcontent has so far been lackluster, although there has been much discussion over the possibility of block scheduling, study halls, and increased quality of student grooming....Conflicting views have also been observed amongst the more "conservative" and "progressive" faculty factions....Although no changes have yet been put into effect, one of the proposals appears to be one which will mandate golf shirts for all students during the fall and spring seasons, while jackets will be required during the winter months. Currently, the school has a dress code that requires students to wear a shirt and tie throughout the year and a jacket or sweater during the winter months.

Since Mr. Marchese's arrival, a communal prayer, along with the Pledge of Allegiance, have been introduced to the morning routine....While some see these changes as positive contributions, others contend that they are simply exercises in power on behalf of the new administration.

There was much uproar over the recent withdrawal of two seniors. Following their actions on a Kairos Retreat, the two young men, along with their parents, met with the school administration and decided that their actions were not consistent with those of a La Salle student. Some feel the new administration attempted to make an example of the situation, laying down the law at the expense of two students.

As La Salle seeks reaccreditation from the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, the administration is trying to remove the 'Country Club' image which has plagued the school for years. The school has adopted an Institutional Advancement model for development and communications and has made numerous changes in its communications efforts, including the launching of an improved website that serves the school community. The school is also taking a stand over grade inflation as well as becoming a regional pioneer in the movement to standardize test scores.

La Salle is also notorious among its students in regards to its cafeteria, which is currently headed by Williamson Hospitality Services, Inc. Students have complained of unnecessarily high food prices and smaller meal portions. Efforts to organize a school-wide boycott of foodstuffs during the 2004-05 year were met with little success, as many students chose not to partake in the endeavor. There is debate about the reason why the boycott was not a success. One possibility is that some people simply regarded it as a joke and found out about it via flyers on the floor. Perhaps if there were a known leader or someone who claimed responsibility and headed this boycott it would have been much more of a success. If a new boycott arises with a more focused leadership, students at La Salle could see a change in the food program, yet there is little chance for this to happen because there is no sense of outrage as the prices have stayed the same and Freshman are unaware of the former attempts of boycotting. Others contend the reason was because La Salle students did not care enough about the issue to change policy.

For years La Salle College High School has had one of the lowest tuitions when compared to other independent schools in the Tri-State Area. In an effort to meet current operating expenses and to help offset the rising costs associated with a private-school education, the base tuition for freshmen to juniors has been raised to $13,000 for the 2006-07 school year, a $1,300 increase from the 2005-06 school year.

In a reversal of Mr. Assaf’s precedent, a Senior of homosexual orientation has been forbidden by Mr. Marchese from taking another male to the Senior Prom in May. Mr. Assaf had previously permitted such actions to occur. Many see this as an attempt to endorse traditional church doctrine forbidding homosexual actions at the expense of the student’s civil liberties.

Until that material has been sourced, anyone is within their rights to remove it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

heres the deal 1. you said "I'd add that the school's preferred style doesn't determine ours. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)" in regards to tim's comment on the dates. has nothing to do with the nature of whether it is or is not encyclopediac.

I said that in the context of a discussion on the use of abbreviated dates; it clearly had nothing to do with the recent-events section, nor did I imply that it had. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your argument of clarity concerning the dates of alumni, I must insist that the format for alumni graduation dates follow the convention set forth by the school. While this may differ from whatever standard you follow, I have already cited my reasoning with an example from the school's site, whereas you have simply stated "MoS," with no further support. Perhaps if you could cite a Wikipedia article that demands the years be represented with all four digits? 68.42.26.238 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim

2. why is it not unencyclopediac? All you say is that it is something you would find in a school newspaper. But if a school newspaper won't publish it, then it clearly is not something you would find in it. you never answer this argument. and even if it is something that you would find in a school newspaper (which i would contend is not), there is no justification that a fact printed in a school newspaper does not deserve to be on wikipedia.

I can only suggest that you go and look at a couple of encyclopædias, then look at the text above. The students complain about the food, the school might introduce new "grooming" regulations, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

While you may not find this information pertinent, I disagree and suggest that any consensus of the student body would deem this information relevant.

It may not seem encyclopediac to you, but that is the opinion of one person.

Brett, Dan, and I are three La Salle seniors that have much more of a first-hand view of the school in comparison to your outsider view.

Mayhaps you believe that is what makes you the more objective editor, but that's your own ego problem, not mine. 68.42.26.238 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim

Guys, be polite to Mel Etitis here. He's actually got a point really. There's a lot of interesting things to be said about something, and only some of it can go into an encyclopedia. So you're going to have to pick and choose and mention only the most important things. As a good rule of thumb, things that are most important are those that are least likely to realistically change in the next 10 years or even 50 years.

Another thing an encyclopedia needs is references. You need to have some newspaper article, book, photo, or whatever kind of evidence digital or on paper, which was made by someone who isn't you. And you need that evidence to back up every line you say. If you do that, this article will be perfect!

It's a tough job, but no one said writing an encyclopedia was easy. Kim Bruning 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(Ps, do go into the school library and look at some encyclopedias. See if you can find entries on other schools, or on universities... Do you see how those are written? ) Kim Bruning 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

3. yes i did look at the wiki project under the schools. the title of the page is now "recent history." under the wiki proj on schools, one of the paradigms is "history." recent history is still history.

No, it isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

4. all you are doing is in effect repeating yourself. answer my arguments. the fact that it is truth.

?? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

5. go back to where you said that material would be subject to voting to determine if it is relevant. general consensus is that it is relevant.

?? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

6. on the sources - see above for why it is legit. and also, not every wiki article has sources on it, especially in the citing of certain people's qualifications. what makes this article unique?

Read WP:CITE. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

7. see www.lschs.org for some sources others can be found on www.philly.com or www.phillyburbs.com or other websites related to the school.

No, not — you don't throw addresses at us and tell us to do the research. That muight be how you're taught to work at your school, though I hope not, but it's not good enough here.

In any case, citations won't help with the general problem of the unencyclopædic nature of the material.

I've listed the article at Requests for comment, so I hope that more editors will come to give their assessments.

Incidentally, you might also need to read Wikipedia:3RR; reverting an article more than three times in any teenty-four hour period is forbidden, and is rsponded to with a twenty-four hour editing block. You've already violated the rule, but we'll assume that you didn't know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I will refer you to the Verification section below.

Brett cannot cite any of this, because he is the first to transcribe it.

I have made my own changes to the content, as you can plainly see from the history.

I will testify that everything stated in the recent history, or whatever we're calling it now, is true.

Dan has also confirmed this. 68.42.26.238 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 01:00

"Mission statement"

Is this a quotation? If so, it should be in inverted commas. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --James S. 02:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Verification

You ask Brett to verify all of this, but he experianced it all first hand. If his word is not good enough, then I will back him up on this. Everything he has posted is true, I go to school with him and can verify this. Brett is the first person to actually transcribe this, so it is impossible to get a written source.(Danf 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

• Sorry, our standards are higher than "I promise it's true." See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 01:02
  
  • If you must, call the entire section a testimony, but it's true and it deserves to stay. 68.42.26.238 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim
    • We do not do original research here. A Wikipedian who comes in and writes information that he knows to be true (exactly what is happening here) is original research if that information is not already published in reputable sources beforehand. If you want to put this content on a site, sign up for an account on MySpace or LiveJournal. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 01:05
      
      • Are you saying that if this is published in such a base forum as a Myspace or LiveJournal, that I could cite it from there? Or are you saying that this information needs to published in a reputable source before it can appear on Wikipedia? In which case, how would you recommend publishing this information, and in what medium to satisfy your standards? This is true and factual information, where else to publish it first but in a Wikipedia? Mayhaps I misunderstand the entire purpose of the site, and in that case, I very seriously would like an explanation or at least a shove in the right direction. 68.42.26.238 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim
        • Wikipedia is not a primary publication. As an encyclopedia, it summarises other sources. An Encyclopedia is a specific special kind of document, and indeed, it is not the place to publish things first. Kim Bruning 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
          • While a reasonable response, it doesn't answer my question. Can anyone help me here? This information is currently unsatisfactory, what measures can I take to give it verifiability? 68.42.26.238 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim
        • No, we don't cite MySpace/LiveJournal. I'm saying if you want your unverified content printed on the Internet, you should put it somewhere else. We won't accept it here. If you want it verified, get your city's newspaper to do a story on it. That's the only chance you have. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 01:23

The measures you can take to give this validity is to get it published in a reputable publication (newspaper, magazine, whatever) or a valid and respectable website (not a personal site or a forum). Until there is a source such as that, it has to stay out. I will be leaving the protection on for now, get agreement to put in information first please, then we can allow the article to be edited again. -- sannse (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever

I give up. I can't keep up with the constant reverts you all are pulling. I honestly believe you are making a mistake, but I can't take this. I can't devote any more time to this, I have schoolwork to catch up on. Massacre this site as you have been, I won't stop you. 68.42.26.238 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim

• If we let every kid with an internet connection publish his/her own opinions as "the truth", then we truly would be massacring this site. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 01:45
  

I don't appreciate that barb. I'm a senior at the high school to which this article is dedicated, as are Brett and Dan. None of this is opinion. Mayhaps you should stop being so bitter.

• This isn't personal. I'm just trying to make it clear why we don't accept any random person's opinion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 03:03

Guys, behave :-) Kim Bruning 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to point out that I am not any random person. Check with Brett or Dan. And speaking of random, who are you that you've so involved yourself in my school's article? I understand you're an admin and you probably thing you are looking out for the general good of the world, but watch who you are calling random. 68.42.26.238 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Tim

• I don't add unverified content to articles either. I am not a published, reliable source, just as you aren't. Do you still not get it? This is an encyclopedia. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 03:22

Brian, I think he said he doesn't get it in the last section already. Could you explain to him please? I need sleep <looks very sleepy indeed> Kim Bruning 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Brett, Dan, or whoever our anon IP editor is: It's just not in Wikipedia's mission to be a primary source or publisher; we collect, verify, and collate information from other sources (be they Internet, media, books, journals, etc), and then put it together in a usable format (articles). Believe it or not, this is the same basic procedure that all encyclopaedias ascribe to; that's why you keep running into the original research brick wall. All pages are held to this standard, and someone noticed this page and the edits to it (probably because of the school's concern over their page, I don't know as I just saw this today). If it gets published on the school's website or in the school's paper/yearbook/press release/etc, you might be able to make a case for arguing some of that information into the article, but it can't just include wholesale student opinion. Or teacher opinion, or janitor, for that matter! I hope that helps... no one is trying to drive you off, just educate you in how things work and why they don't appear to be working here. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Notability of administration's restrictions on article creator

As far as I can tell, this is the only school which has ever threatened a student with sanctions if the article on the school he or she created becomes inaccurate. Isn't that notable? I think it deserves a section in the article. It certainly doesn't indicate a very good understanding of the way Wikipedia works on the part of the administrators. Since it is a private school, people are likely to be very interested in this form of extralegal dicipline before they start spending their money on tuition. Thoughts? --James S. 19:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's original research, I'm afraid. Kim Bruning 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How so? It has been verified by multiple students writing above. If it is an act by the administration reported by the students, that makes their reports secondary sources, and as far as I can tell there is no dispute. More to the point, is this situation notable enough to override WP:SELF? --James S. 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, seriously, no. Kim Bruning 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The information is not verified with reliable sources. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 20:38

Neither is the sports data. Such a double standard is a POV bias. Why are students expected to be any more reliable about sports, which concern only the athletes, than general diciplinary measures, which affect the entire school? --James S. 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The sports data isn't potentially libellous, though. We have to be more careful in that area. While sources should still be found for the sports data, it isn't crucial that the content remain out of the article until sourced. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 23:16

Okay, I can completely agree with that. However, it seems that User:Fish114 is in far more trouble than Wikipedia could possibly be, unless the disclaimers are held to be insufficiently prominent, which is unlikely as they are accessable from the last word on every page. I will replace substrings which could not be construed to libel. --James S. 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see how he could be in trouble. His task was to keep this article factual, and the current version is. His problem is that he was afraid to remove that large block of content, which is what he should have done in the first place. Instead, he tried to make it more "neutral" (according to the school's definition of "neutral"), rather than to drop the section altogether. If his school has a problem with Wikipedia's content, they should contact Wikipedia. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-8 00:24

• None of that section should be re-added without reliable sources. It will only make matters worse. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-8 00:26

Take a look. I took out admin names, sliced at least a full paragraph of POV meandering op-eds, and added {{citation needed}}s in an attempt to help them see why it can't really stand. I also moved the big blue {{unverified}} disclaimer at the top of the section.

These are legitimate and notable issues -- what Catholic school hasn't been struggling with adminitrative responses to gay kids? Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Don't bite the newbies. Reports of a failed cafeteria boycott might not seem encyclopedic to you and me, but that is solely because of our POV. It is probably crucial to the students who have to eat there, and therefore clearly encyclopedic from their POV. Wikipedia is not paper. --James S. 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia does not cater to the needs of every single point of view. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-8 02:04

Granted, but students disatisfied with their school is probably a sizeable number; not 5,000 for the school, which is already notable because of its alumni, but as a class they might be 50% of all students everywhere. I agree that the {{citation needed}}-marked sections should go if the students can't come up with reasonable sources in a week or two. It ought to be easy. But I completely agree that if they don't do it, the unsourced statements must go. --James S. 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have the best revision for all concerned parties, James S. At least for now. Jimbo 01:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This user is not Jimbo.... HMMM! Kim Bruning 01:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the Jimbo; I suspect he will disambiguate soon enough. I used to be a Jimbo in 1975. --James S. 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, folks. Is this better? Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I added this:

In 2006, the administration told the creator of this Wikipedia article that he would be responsible for ensuring its accuracy, and that he might be charged with conduct violations such as behavior damaging the reputation of the school. After the ensuing discussion, a Wikipedia administrator blocked that student from editing any articles.

On reflection, I believe this does rise above WP:SELF. What if an employer had made such a request of an employee? What if a scientist had made such a request of his or her graduate students? Would administrators be clamoring to support such censorship? No. There is nothing special about a school as opposed to those other examples, and this is indeed a very notable event. --James S. 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Recommendation to students

This is a profoundly interesting situation. I suggest that you approach the education/community/news editor of your local paper asking for a reporter to be assigned to write a story about the fact that the article's creator was threatened by the administration with sanctions if the article became inaccurate. Then there would certainly be no problem including the fact. My opinion is that in the absence of a dispute (is anyone disputing the reality of the administration's threat?) there are already enough secondary sources here to justify inclusion of the situation in the main article. Some apparently disagree, so I recommend getting a news report published. You also might want to make sure that the administration understands that anyone can edit Wikipedia, at any time. They should also be given a copy of the disclaimers linked at the bottom of each page. --James S. 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• These people are not sources. They are members of the Wikipedia community, and as such their work is original research. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 20:52
  • Are you saying that if they get this published in their local newspaper, that would not be an acceptable source since the paper is part of the community? That's silly. Jacoplane 21:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course it's silly. That's why I didn't say that. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-7 21:43

Another thing: reliable secondary sources don't have to be paper. It often helps when they are, but if the administration made an announcement at an assembly on a certain day, you can cite that as "(Address from Mr./Bro. _____________ at assembly of Month Day, Year)" The phone number of the school office is in the info box, so phone that one and make sure that whomever answers can verify, or put you in touch with someone who can verify, the cited claims. I.e., call and ask "Did the principal announce _____ on Month Day, Year?" and don't take "I don't know" for an answer. Get your sister or someone somewhere else on the internet if you are afraid your voice might be recognized. I truly appreciate the magnitude of information you have attempted to add to this article, and I believe that it has taken you a great deal of courage to do so. I apologize if some of the more experienced editors here might have seemed uncivil; certainly the user blocking of the article's creator should have been subject to Wikipedia:Consensus before the lone sysop took such a drastic action, which was clearly uncivil. That and several other examples here represent a profound failure of some to refrain from "biting newbies." I ask that you persevere, gathering and verifying sources, using them to enhance the article, and moving forward.

Also, you should clearly abandon your existing usernames and edit under new usernames if you think your identity might have been compromised. There is no sense risking your academic standing in pursuit of the moderation of authoritarianism. --James S. 00:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The local newspaper has been contacted by another student, but they are waiting for a reply. It does seem rather newsworthy, but apparently I am too arrogant and inexperience to be able to voice such an opinion. Or at least that's what Mel Etitis has told me. I personally agree with James S. on almost every account, because his view is the most fair to every view point while remaining objective. 68.42.26.238 22:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Tim

Section removed as unsourced -- double standard

I have copyedited and replaced the recently removed unsourced section, and blanked it here, all to prevent libel concerns. --James S. 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the new version was deleted again, I am replacing it here. --James S. 16:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent controversies

The 2005-6 school year has seen controversy over an administrator's decision to enforce previously lax rules. While resulting student dissatisfaction is generally reported to be mild, much discussion has occurred over the possibility of block scheduling, study halls, and increased quality of student grooming. The administrator in question is on record as being opposed to block scheduling. In an effort to dispel any rumors, the administrator met with both faculty and student leaders advising them of his stance on those matters. Conflicting policy views have been expressed by politically opposed factions of the faculty. The administrator created an open door policy, inviting students, parents, faculty, and staff alike to express their concerns. The administrator plans on making an announcement of the open door policy to the student body, and has also said that he does not necessarily agree with every rule in place before he arrived at La Salle, but believes his job is to enforce those rules to the fullest extent.

Since the administrator's arrival, a communal prayer, along with the Pledge of Allegiance, have been introduced to the morning routine. Additionally, signs with a school motto dating back to the 1930's, "Boys will be Boys, but La Salle Boys will be Gentlemen," have been affixed to a wall in every classroom, encouraging some students and challenging others. While some see these changes as positive contributions, others disagree. In a reversal of the prior administration's precedent, a gay student has been forbidden from taking another male to the senior prom in May. Many see this as an endorsement of traditional church doctrine forbidding homosexuality at the expense of civil liberties.

A dress code committee has been established to review the dress code and make recommendations for possible changes. Although no changes have yet been put into effect, one proposal appears to mandate golf shirts for all students during the fall and spring seasons, while jackets will be required during the winter months. Currently, the school has a dress code that requires students to wear a shirt and tie throughout the year and a jacket or sweater during the winter months.

Dissent followed two students' withdrawal following their actions on a Kairos retreat. The students met with their parents and the school administration, deciding that their actions were not consistent with La Salle student norms. Some see this as an example of scapegoating.

As La Salle seeks reaccreditation from the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, the administration is trying to downplay the country club image which some see as negative. The school has adopted an "institutional advancement model" for development and has made numerous changes in communications, including the launching of an improved website that serves the school community. The school is also taking a stand over grade inflation as well as becoming a regional pioneer in the movement to standardize test scores.

La Salle's cafeteria, currently headed by Williamson Hospitality Services, Inc., has also been a source of controversy. Students have complained of unnecessarily high food prices and smaller meal portions. Efforts to organize a school-wide boycott of foodstuffs during the 2004-5 year were met with little success, because many students chose not to participate. Student opinions vary as to the cause of the failed boycott, ranging from insufficient communication of the part of boycott leadership to student apathy.

For years La Salle College High School has had one of the lowest tuitions when compared to other independent schools in the Tri-State Area. In an effort to meet current operating expenses and to help offset the rising costs associated with a private-school education, the base tuition for freshmen to juniors has been raised to $13,000 for the 2006-7 school year, a $1,300 increase from the 2005-6 school year.

In December, 2005, the administration told the creator of this Wikipedia article that he would be responsible for ensuring its accuracy, and that he might be charged with conduct violations such as behavior damaging the reputation of the school if he could not do so. After the ensuing discussion, a Wikipedia administrator blocked that student from editing any articles. After email contact with him, another administrator reported that the banned creator of this article was satisfied with being banned.

Photo requested

Can any of you get a photo similar to this one from your own camera and upload it? The entry-way sign is a poor representation of the school. --James S. 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

History Section Needs Editing

It was pulled directly from lschs.org and may contain bias. I would appreciate it if it could be edited. Matt White 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because the source page showed a copyright restriction; please replace it (and edit it yourself!) if you have permission. --James S. 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Replacing in progress. --James S. 03:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

School article structure suggestion; what's missing here

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Structure:

(Recommended) sections of the article:

• History — Describe the history of the school, including noteworthy milestones in its development. The recent history in the intro is good enough. I hate to say it, but the official history is mostly fluff, and doesn't detail many noteworthy milestones at all. done.
• Campus — Describe the overall shape and size of the campus. Mention any famous buildings or stadia and their architects. Yes; this should be included.
• Students — Statistics on students, size of student body (always state the date when the information is current and be cautious about having too many statistics that will need to be updated frequently). Mention of individual current students or individual student's achievement while at the high school is not suggested, unless they are well recognized (noted) outside of the school. Already in info box, and hard to make a whole section out of this.
• Faculty — State the number of faculty members, statistics on faculty, student-to-teacher ratio, etc. Distinguish between tenure/nontenured, full- and part-time (if possible). Names of noteworthy (e.g. award-winning, published) faculty of the past can be mentioned. Generally timeless information (such as published teachers) is preferred over transitory information (like the exact number of math teachers at a point in time). This is indeed needed here -- who are the most notable faculty? Are there any already in Wikipedia? Which have won awards of any kind litely?
• Extracurricular activities — Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of school, like students' union/student council activities, a student newspaper, clubs, regular activities, etc. The heading may be changed accordingly in regard to the importance of sports, clubs, traditions, students' unions etc. For example, alternative headings could be Students' Union, Sports and Traditions or Students' Union Activities. Mention significant championships for the sports teams. The sports section is huge, but it's always worth adding more of this. added student council yesterday; the most prominent other activities, TV and forensics, don't seem particularly unique
• Curriculum — If the curriculum of the school is especially unique or notable, mention why here. For instance, if the high school is called a culinary academy, elaborate on this here. For a school like this, what you really want to do is say how many AP classes and students you produce each year, and in what subjects if not the full spectrum. Everyone knows what a High School is supposed to teach, so don't go in to too much detail unless it is unique in some way.

I threw stuff about the curriculum in. Do you approve? I cited my sources. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

100%! Good job! Don't forget to take a copyright-free photo (or photos, better yet -- I feel that someone might object to the Wikipeda-only permission of the existing photos) --James S. 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Notable alumni — Bulleted list of alumni that are notable (outside the school). Mention the graduation year and give a short description why they are famous. Also, include an annotation to show that they did indeed attend the school. I've never seen such a huge list as this school's.
• References — Provide verifiable sources of information about the school, that are independent of the school itself. This may include newspaper and magazine articles on the school. For private schools, an accreditation body or government source should be provided to show the organization is a legitimate school. An article should not rely solely on what its subject has to say about itself (as with any article in Wikipedia). If a resource is online (which is ideal) consider that potential it will go offline (newspaper's often allow free reading only for recent stories) and provide sufficient information that the story could still be found (author, publication, full article title, date, etc). Very important: find the sources marked needed if you want to keep your "Recent events" section.
• External links — Give a link to the website of the school, preferably one in the English language. You may also include other informational links that may interest readers, but who's contents might be beyond the scope of inclusion in the article. If you can find them, sure, but the school website is good enough.

--James S. 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of those things I just linked to in "External links" so check those before adding any of the above. --James S. 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I'm responding to an RfC, and have no personal investment in this subject. I do believe the section in question, "Recent controversies," needs to be deleted. However, I think Brett is editing with good intentions, so in the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, I'd like to take the time to explain the policy behind my opinion:

• The first issue is the meaning "verifiability" in its Wikipedia context. The complete policy can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability, but here are a couple of points. Most important, "verifiable" is not synonymous with "true." Something can be true and not verifiable. In terms of this site, verifiable means that the information has been published by a reputable source. This includes newspapers, magazines, books, and some websites. It does not include blogs, personal websites, school newspapers, message boards, and editorials. The difference is that the former go through editing and fact checking, while the later don't (or at least aren't required to). Whether the statements are true is not the issue. What matters is whether we can prove it. Nobody's accusing you of lying about your identity, but the fact is that Wikipedia has no way of confirming the identity of an editor, and therefore what information they might be privy to. The same logic applies to other editors vouching for you.
• Although Wikipedia has a broader scope than traditional encyclopedias, there are still limits on the information included here. While Wikipedia:Notability (people) is aimed at articles about people, some of the notability guidelines set out there are applicable to other types as well. One is the 100 year test: "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" In this case, that would mean anyone but LaSalle students or employees. In this case, I don't think the information passes the ten year test. To be included on Wikipedia, these issues would have to be shown to affect more than just the student population.

Another is the Google test. The idea here is that if a topic gets a significant number of google hits, it's more likely to be notable. For example, Googling the phrases "La Salle" and "block scheduling" only turns up 303 hits, the first of which is this article (that's generally considered a bad sign). "La Salle" and "Middle State" turns up only 119, most of which have nothing to do with this article.

• It's generally considered bad form to edit any article about yourself, or about an event you are involved in (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). The first reason is that it's very difficult to be objective about one's self. The second is a sort of check and balance on notability. Meaning, if the information is truly notable, someone uninvolved in the even will eventually write an article about it.

Understand that nobody's trying to keep you from contributing from Wikipedia. It's just that most editors here take the project seriously, and share in the goal of creating a resoruce that will some day be as trusted as a print encyclopedia. This has become more of an issue lately, as false information on this site has become the subject of media scrutiny (see the Nature and Siegenthaler controversies). It may seem minor to be worrying about a section of on article on a high school, but every person who reads that article and questions its truthfulness is a person who may not trust this site again. --djrobgordon 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good show, but perhaps apply WP:WOTTA to your answers :-) Kim Bruning 14:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfC request read as follows: "pupil at the school insists on adding long section of recent events. Other editors argue that it is, first, unencyclopædic, and secondly, completely unsourced." Nrcprm2026 left a message on my Talk page saying that this was "nowhere near neutral", and changed the request to: "students have added a section on recent controversies. The school administration threatened the student creator of the article with diciplinary measures if he was unable to keep the article accurate. The student article creator was subsequently banned and is statisfied with that situation. The controversies section is currently on the talk page, unverified and scrubed for libel concerns."

Not only was my original request neutral (possibly "insists" was a minor problem, though it conveyed the fact that the section was repeatedly replaced), but the replacement was largely irrelevant, and disguises the nature of the problem. (I've reverted to the original version.) This editor's antics are beginning to go beyong mildly irritating, and are verring into disruption. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen that he'd reverted to his version, with the disingenuous (to put it no more strongly) edit summary: "revert: mel requested change, admitting "insists" was POV". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote: The only word that might be thought of as being less than neutral is "insists"; why not change it if you feel that strongly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I stand by my edits and summaries. --James S. 21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Could someone explain to me why the school administration's threat concerning the accuracy of the article is relevant to the inclusion of the "recent events" section? Nrcprm2026 insists that it is, and on including it in the RfC; I don't see it. Illumination would be gtefully received. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from above: What if an employer had made such a request of an employee? What if a scientist had made such a request of his or her graduate students? Would administrators be clamoring to support such censorship? No. There is nothing special about a school as opposed to those other examples, and this is indeed a very notable event. --James S. 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How is that relevant to my question? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Notability mentioned in the first post in this section: It may not matter much to people outside of this school, but what about small towns that have their own articles? For example, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, the town in which La Salle is located, isn't really that important. Also, it seems that it does matter to people outside the school, at least for now, because all of us are editing it. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

James S. seems determined to get his own way in the face of pretty well unanimous opinions from editors above. He's insisting on a biased and obscure wording for the RfC (if he reverts once more he will have violated 3RR, about which I have clearly warned him), and on placing the inappropriate {{update}} template on this article on the basis that the "Recent history/events/ whatever" section has been removed. he also seems not to understand the point of thumbing images. If this continues, I shall request full page protection. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel, you are they only one who has removed the {{update}} tag; the other editors have indicated that the recent controversies should be included if and only if they can be sourced, and left the update tag alone for hours yesterday. Your edits to the RfC were reverts, mine were edits; a helpful third party has produced a compromise synthesis. Putting the squat gymnasium image in a default thumbnail is absurd, and goes against the principles of good graphic design. There are no guidelines on image width, and if there were, squat images would certainly be the exception. --James S. 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"I do believe the section in question, "Recent controversies," needs to be deleted" (djrobgordon)

"the other editors have indicated that the recent controversies should be included if and only if they can be sourced" (Nrcprm2026) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Images are thumbed so that readers can load pages quickly and decide for themselves whether or not to see an image full size. Thumbing and then forcing them to a larger size defeats the purpose. Why you think that a photo of an empty, pretty well generic gymnasium should have to be so prominent defeats me, in any case.
2. Placing the (oh so exciting) image of a sign further down the page means that many browsers (including mine) see a forced break in :the text.
3. The article only needs up-dating if some of it is out of date. You're placing the template for the wrong reasons, to make a point about the removal of the section. That's at least perilously close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
4. The consensus on Wikipedia talk:External links was that multiple links to subsections of the same site are unnecessary and should be avoided. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The number of pixels in a wide squat image is about the same as in a normal-sized thumb. The gymnasium photo adds flavor.
2. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the sign. I have not moved the sign photo. The Alumni house photo logically belongs in the alumni section. As you can see above, I have asked the students to get a better photo than the sign.

   Then you're reverting me without even looking to see what's involved. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

3. The fact is that the students reported on events, including discrimination against gay students. I believe those events are for the most part encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and it is not paper. The events are legitimate controversies occuring in a notable school, and censoring them because it is your personal subjective opinion that they are not encyclopedic does a great disservice to the students, prospective students, and parents who might want to know more about what is happening in the school.
4. Two other editors who agree with you on a style guide's talk section is not a consensus. The extra external links were added, as mentioned above, to satisfy the explicit content requirements in Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Structure; please see.

Therefore, I am reverting the changes. --James S. 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We're arguing about a picture now? This is minor stuff. As for the update tag, it is inappropriate. The only reason I didn't move it myself is that I try to leave things intact while an RfC is in progress. If a template was put up, it should have been either "unsourced" or "not verified." The content doesn't need to updated, it needs to be confirmed. Then, after it's confirmed, it needs to be proven notable. Also, let's not make the situation worse with sarcasm. --djrobgordon 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The unverified recent controversies have been moved here to the talk page; there are no disputes or controversies remaining in the main article, other than Mel's problems with which I disagree. --James S. 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The {{update}} template was added well after the RfC was made. It's true that the other edits are minor, but it's always irritating when an editor messes up the formatting of a page while stubbornly insisting that he's improving it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

False, the {{update}} was also used about 24 hours ago while some of us were working to try to get the controversial sections scrubed for libel concerns and marked for verification instead of merely deleting large passages without moving them to the talk page. --James S. 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mel, I should have looked to see when the template was added. Also, while I do think the other edits are minor, I didn't mean that they shouldn't be addressed at all. I wrote my comment in response to Nrcprm, but you edited the page while I was writing, so I added it after your comment without making that clear.

As for the image, maybe you can compromise and set it at 250px. I almost always opt for the standard thumb, but I tried it with this image and you can't even tell what it is that small. However I agree that 450 is too big. I also think it looks unprofessional centered at the bottom of the section. --djrobgordon 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the content isn't notable by any Wikipedia standard. Believe it or not, policy issues like this come up in every high school every year. How big would each high school page be if we included all that?

Here's an example: When I was a senior at North Olmsted High School, a friend and I started a campaign to get condoms distributed at school. We circulated a petition, which a majority of the student body signed, and took it to the school board. Although the local paper published a brief capsule about the campaign, you'll notice that I haven't added it to the school article. That's because, seven years later, nobody except me and a couple of my friends care about it. --djrobgordon 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that policy issues like this come up in every high school every year, but that only means that they are more notable -- effecting more people, which is one of the devinitions of notability -- not less. A failed attempt to distribute condoms is a far cry from the issue of whether gay couples are allowed to attend prom. Condoms are easily available anywhere in the industrialized world. Freedom from sexual discrimination is not. --James S. 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedicness of two of the controversies

Okay, just as a straw poll, is there anyone who thinks that the issue of whether a school will allow gay couples to attend their promotional ceremonies is not encyclopedic; if so, why not? Furthermore, is there anyone who thinks mention of a failed cafeteria boycott is encyclopedic; if so, why? --James S. 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree that not allowing a gay couple is wrong, but that doesn't make it not encyclopedic. Actually, it would be more notable if they were allowed to attend. This is a case of a Catholic school acting in accordance with Catholic doctrine. How is that unusual? If this gets significant media coverage, or if there's a lawsuit, I may change my mind, but not as the facts stand now.

As for the failed cafeteria boycott, the fact that nobody participated in it makes it, literally, a thing made up in school one day, and therefore not appropriate for this site.

Regardless, it's not relevant whether the content is encyclopedic or not if it's not verifiable, and as of now, no editor has come forward with any acceptable sources. --djrobgordon 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation with the gay couple isn't a promotional ceremony, it's the prom, short for promenade, and it is a formal dance. djrobgordon is correct in saying that it is unsignificant due to it's accordance with Catholic doctrine. However, it is significant for another reason. The past two years there have been gay couples in attendance. The new principal's decision to prevent it marks the first official change in policy the administration has made. It is blatantly contrary to the precedent set by the former principal, and therefore is important.

The failed cafeteria boycott may not be suitable for an encyclopedia, I am not passing judgement on it's worthiness. I would, however, disagree with djrobgordon on one point. I was not something made up in school one day. To the contrary, it was planned to great extent by a number of seniors and juniors, and flyers were even posted. However, students still bought lunch, and the profits from higher prices with less students actually exceeded the profits at the original prices with the normal amount of students.

My personal belief is that the boycott failed because of students who don't pay for their lunches. La Salle is a private school, an expensive one. Many, if not most, of the students are given an unlimited amount of money by their parents to buy lunch. Those students wouldn't even blanch at an increased price, because it isn't really their money. It was my discovery that the majority of those participating in the boycott were students who paid for their lunches out of their pocket.

Mind you, I am not proposing to include the boycott in the article, I am merely clarifying the situation, and I pass judgement to a less biased contributor.

However, I consider myself far enough removed from the prom incident to attest to it's relevance. --Tim 00:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment The previous comment by Tim is his first and only edit on this site. --djrobgordon 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What if the school decided that interracial couples were no longer welcome at the prom? Would that be notable? What's the difference?

Think about it. If a junior highschooler who thinks he might be gay is trying to decide between applying to this and a secular school, don't they deserve to know about the ban? Wouldn't the school prefer that they know about the ban to solve problems? Some people! --James S. 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time. We can argue all we want about whether this content is encyclopedic or not, but none of that matters unless it's verifiable. Until someone presents a source other than his or her own experience, I don't see the point in this conversation. --djrobgordon 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Djrobgordon's comments in their entirety. I think it is stupid and unenlightened for the school to take the stance it did in re the gay couple, but it seems quite the norm for a conservative Catholic school in the U.S. A court case or significant media coverage would be necessary for it to warrant mention in this article. Assuming that notability can be established, however, verifiability will still be an issue. Or maybe it's the other way around. Regardless, both are needed, and right now, we have neither. - Jersyko talk 01:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. - and seriously, folks, stay cool and take it light.

What a double standard: the sports information is just as unsourced, so should it go, too? There has been no dispute of the fact, so I added it to the infobox. Gay junior highschoolers deserve the benefit of the information, and I'm sure the administration would prefer that they apply elsewhere. If there was ever a more utilitarian definition of notability, I haven't heard it. --James S. 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the thing about the prom should go in the info box. It's really not that important compared to the other facts in there. It also seems pretty random to an ourtside observer. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 02:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not my first and only edit, I was previously posting under the IP address 68.42.26.238, but I decided to make a log-in. I have been editing this article since 5 Janurary 2006.

Also, the sports section was originally posted by me, and that can be confirmed through the history. It was pulled verbatim from http://www.lschs.org/page.cfm?p=388, but has since been edited.

I intend to obtain explicit permission to use any and all copyrighted info from www.lschs.org, I will ask our webmaster tomorrow during school. --Tim 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course gay students have the right to know their lifestyle isn't tolerated at a school, but that doesn't make this the place to tell them. Notability, in terms of Wikipedia, means that the subject would be of interest to people whose lives aren't directly affected by it. Gay students considering applying to the school obviously don't fall into the category. Many pieces of information are both true and useful, and yet don't belong on this site. If you want some examples, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

If your aim is to pass information to a particular group of people with the goal of affecting their behavior, that's a form of activism, and doesn't belong on this site. If you want to inform homosexual students about your school's policy you can start your own site, convince a gay rights organization in your area to protest the policy, write a letter to the editor of your local paper, or do any number of other things that don't involve adding unverified information to Wikipedia.

Also, you refuse to address my concerns about the verifiability of the information. Even if there were a consensus that the information belonged here, it would be deleted for not having a source. Your argument about the sports information is off for a couple of reasons (other than the fact that the editor who added it has since cited a source in this thread). First, athletic records are not likely to be considered libelous. Beyond that, you're arguing that the content you added should be allowed to be substandard because other information on the site is substandard. Due to the nature of the project, there will always be articles that don't live up to Wikipedia standards. That doesn't make it acceptable, and it's not an excuse not to source your additions.

Finally, you should consider the fact that, even after the Request for Comment, the only editors willing to stand up for this content are students at this school. It's not exactly a violation of WP:SELF, but it comes pretty close. --djrobgordon 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

¿Protected?

So, maybe it's because I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. But I never saw any notice of this article becoming protected, nor could I locate it in the discussion or histories. I had been previously posting under the IP address of 68.42.26.238, and at first I thought it was because I didn't have an account. But with an account, I still can't edit, and I would like to know why, and when [if?] I can again. My intention right now is to remove the "Gay couples at prom" from the infobox, because while I think that should be included somewhere on the page, the way it is presented now is inappropriate and vaguely sarcastic. Thanks for any clarifications on this. --Tim 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I got it out, Tim. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar?

I don't think that it should mention gay couples [not] being allowed at the prom in the sidebar. This is for basic information about the school, not for something like that. I have no opposition to it being later in the article, if verified, but the sidebar is for the general information about the school, not its sexual orientation. Matt White 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is more activity here than on the George Bush page. Is there anyway I can talk anyone into throwing that kind of effort into helping me create pages for the rest of the schools in the Catholic League? I have this sneaking suspicion that when this is all over the aricle is going to look eerily similar to what it did when this began except for a few added photos.--Looper5920 02:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. If you think we're biased here, you should see what we'd do to their pages! --Tim 02:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Grading scale

Are transcript grades reported on a scale of 4 or 5? That should go in the "Grading scale" section, too.

It looks like as soon as we can find a few paragraphs on the faculty, this will be up to the structure specs. As soon as someone sources those controversies, it will be ready for peer review. --James S. 07:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Grading scale is in, but may need rewording. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The text is fine, but about the percentage table: That can't actually be a school policy, can it? What if a teacher gave a bunch of hard tests and found out the mean score was 40%? Would almost everyone be forced to flunk? Unless teachers are never allowed to grade on a curve (and I've heard of stranger things), then the table should be marked "advisory only." Since there is supposed to be a campaign against grade inflation, can you get any printed material from the office on this subject? --James S. 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is just a guideline, but it's what most teachers adhere to unless other concerns arise. Personally, I never head about the campaign against grade inflation except from here, so I don't even know if that's actually happening. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel's removal of compromise messagebox

How, exactly, is the Recent controversies messagebox "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?" --James S. 10:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright kids, break it up! And note that Mel Etitis is a pretty experienced wikipedian , so please at least listen to him, eh? :-) Kim Bruning 10:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I actually agree with Nrcprm on this one, although It's sort of irrelevant, since nobody's offered any hope that sources exist. Also, when do you sleep, man? --djrobgordon 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The {{update}} templates are for articles or sections that contain material in need of up-dating. This article doesn't fit that description; creating a section heading simply in order to place an up-date message is merely to make public the dispute about the material. Disputes like that are for Talk pages, not for articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought we were talking about the "not verified" template. I agree that "update" isn't appropriate.--djrobgordon 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for {{notverified}}, though; what does that mean at the top of an empty section? What isn't verified? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a template, it's a custom messagebox for this unique situation. I've always said that if the students can't source their claims, they should certainly go. But I also believe they should have a week or two to get their sources together and verify them. The present messagebox doesn't hurt, it helps with the ample, three-level disclaimer, but it still gives prospective students and their parents access to the underlying information. IF you were a gay junior high-schooler, and you had heard that La Salle used to allow gay couples at the prom, wouldn't you want to know about the policy change? Wouldn't the administration prefer that you know now rather than finding out after enrolling? --James S. 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More Sidebar stuff

In the sidebar, it says that tuiton is $13,000 USD. Should we really put next year's tuition or this year's tuition, which is about $11,700-11,900? Just a basic question of procedure... Matt White 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that anyone getting tuition information fro Wikipedia is going to be interested in next year's, but I'll mark the date. --James S. 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh. You put "'06-7", with which Mel will probably not be happy. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 00:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I invite him to change it without widening the field into a line break. I also invite him, or anyone, to find something to say about the faculty. How can a school with so many notable alumni have no teachers who appear in Google? I've only tried a semi-random sample of about 30 from the directory so far, but still. Isn't there something if not on the website then in a brochure you might have lying around that says something about just a few people on the faculty? --James S. 02:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing we have to that is the faculty and staff directories on the school website. A few of the teachers have their own web pages, but the majority do not, I believe. Matt White 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of our teachers are notable at all outside of the La Salle community. I didn't know there was a correlation between notable alumni and notable faculty. I think you could just write off that section Tim 16:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Throwing in a bit of an opinion here

This is the wrong forum for this, but with that said, something needs to be said about this blatanly wrong and unfactual statement

-- "Feedback about content should, in the first instance, be raised on the discussion pages of those articles."

I like giving my opinion on things, so here it is. Yeah, I realize that Wikipedia is a private website completely outside the control of any administrator at La Salle (except as prescribed in the Wikipedia terms of service), but at the same time, there's really nothing we can do about them and their policies. Legally there is no recourse for students at La Salle who don't want to be subject to disciplinary actions that result from their own actions. Quite simply, it's a matter of, if you don't like it, that's your problem. If the administration doesn't want editors of the Wikipedia website on La Salle to say anything derogatory toward La Salle (whether it is fact or fiction is completely irrelevant), then the administration can get its way. Cries for action, rabblerousing, whatever, it's ridiculous.

1. While there is no specific legal precedent for inciting legal action against the administration, if the student in question was to be expelled, there would certainly be a large amount of public pressure and media scrutinization of the administration. In the end, they are concerned about donations and funding, and if a major associate did not agree with the school, it is more than likely they would concede.
2. There may actually be legal recourse, for the same reason you can’t fire someone because you don’t like them.
3. Fact-Fiction is a critical issue, especially since the administration has indicated they are more concerned with false statements than valid information being placed on the website.
   1. Fact-Fiction is not a critical issue since the La Salle administration has indicated that they will not tolerate any information, true or false, which does not show La Salle in its most positive light
4. The cries seem to be working, as a majority of the senior class supports Brett and the Wikipedia.

Should I be able to say whatever I want about La Salle? Ideally, yes, but practically no. La Salle has no guarantee of free speech. Nobody ever said that I could say whatever about the school. The code of conduct specifically says that La Salle students will act in accordance with how they should act, and that would be decided by the dean of students.

1. No, that’s not what it says, it says that conduct that “does not reflect positively on the school” will be punished accordingly. With that said, it requires speculation, which the administration cannot make legally, in order to determine if that conduct is negative. This is under the “conduct in public places” category of the handbook. This is more relevant when a student gets a DUI, because that shows a student is violating the law. In this case, noting that La Salle will not allow homosexual students to attend a dance is a different ballgame
   1. "La Salle College High School, a private, Catholic, independent school conducted by the Christian Brothers, reserves the right to review any student's conduct in an individual instance or over any period of time to determine whether said conduct is poor, unacceptable or does not contribute to the school in a positive manner. Said determination will be made at the sole discretion of the administration. Upon the making of any such determination, the administration reserves discretion to suspend, place on disciplinary probation, expel or carry out any other disciplinary action it deems appropriate." That covers a plethora of behavior. Including homosexual behavior. They're not saying kids can't be gay, just that they can't bring partners to school sponsored dances as dates.

Does this affect anybody, honestly? Does this website bear so much power that it can cause a student to be expelled? Seriously guys, if you're going to suspend or expell a kid for writing something on a website, you might as well give kids detention for having their shoes untied. And students, if the administration is going to overreact, why are you giving them the time of day? There are easy ways to get around the Wikipedia issue. How many free web hosting sites are there? They're anonymous, and we have enough web techs at La Salle to be able to create a website that the public can edit. If it's that important to you, get a GeoCities site and have a ball. As for other ideas, just step back for a minute. This is just a website. In ten years, nobody is going to care about it. Unless we do something monumental (singlehandedly bring La Salle a football championship or become governor or something along those lines), nobody is going to know who we are or were ten, fifteen, twenty years down the road. We'll have moved on, been past the whole adolescence thing, and learned to chill out about things that are no big deal.

For the prom thing, once again, it shouldn't be much of an issue. The old administration didn't care too much about teachers giving students free periods, about cutting classes, about being late, or about dress code violations. This administration is tougher on free periods, gives five detentions for cutting class, gives a dention for five latenesses, and is strict about the dress code. That all started from day one. As a more conservative administration, how could we expect them to allow homosexual couples to go to a prom? Besides, for crying out loud, a main premise of Catholicism is that it is morally wrong to act on homosexual urges. This administration is just doing what a good Catholic administration should do.

1. No, you don’t understand the issue. With the other stuff (free periods, class cuts, etc.) Assaf was just looking the other way, not violating school policy. Marchese never changed school policy in regards to those issues, rather he just enforced an already existing policy.
   1. No, you don't understand what I'm saying. Did you actually read it? Saying that the old administration "didn't care too much" is the same as saying that it "looked the other way."
2. But, he changed policy when he said (said student) could not attend the prom with another guy. This is a shift from the status quo, wheras it used to permit this action, it now forbids the action. Do you understand the difference between not enforcing policy and changing policy.
   1. Is there a written policy about homosexuals attending school sponsored dances? You just said yourself that the old administration "looked the other way" with regards to certain issues. They never wrote anything into the code of conduct that allowed homosexuals to bring partners to proms. So in the same way that they chose not to care about teachers giving free periods, they also did not care about homosexuals bring partners to proms. The new administration decided to both implement preexisting policies as well as unravel a more conservative approach to homosexuality.
3. No one ever said this was a bad thing, this is a major misconception about the initial student’s attempt at the Wikipedia. They were just pointing out facts, rather than calling for speculation or endorsing an opinion.
   1. I know. I never said he was calling for speculation or endorsing an opinion. I know that he was writing facts down and that La Salle's administration objected to facts that weren't very positive.

The caf' boycott... there was no problem in communication. It was well organized. But what Tim said is right. And also, the boycott did result in combo meals being offered, which showed that students' efforts were not totally in vain (though even reduced prices were higher than original prices). It's unfortunate that everyone is harping on the negatives about this new administration too. Yeah, they might be stricter and they may be restricting some of our generally accepted freedoms, but look at what they're doing to help out La Salle as an institution. Before Christmas, they gave every single student a box of hard candy. Okay, so some kids were jerks and scoffed at the show of kindness, but I saw it as a truly kind gesture. They knew they couldn't possibly wish everyone a merry Christmas, and doing so on WEXP is very impersonal, but giving a tangible gift for students to enjoy is a subtle little reminder of La Sallian and Christian values. Students, can you honestly say that you saw that candy as ridiculous? As dumb? As anything other than kind? Did that candy make you smile or frown?

1. Oh boy, that candy, yea that makes them suddenly redeem themselves. They gave out fucking candy. It was donated. And you also call for speculation and opinion in determining that the things mentioned were “negative factors.” Some would advocate, as you do, that his changes were actually positive. There was no endorsal of opinion or anything like that with the original edits
   1. I never said there was anything like that with the original edits. That's why I didn't want to edit the main page. I just wanted to add an opinion to the discussion page. There's no need to use foul language here... Now, I wasn't addressing what I saw on the main page. I was addressing things that I've seen on the discussion page. You cannot possibly think that people are not portraying the administration negatively (I agree with some of what they're saying too. I don't want block scheduling, and I think caf' prices are way too high). We are bitter because the administration is censoring us. Of course we're going to portray them negatively on a discussion page. And, may I ask, what is wrong with giving out candy to the student body? Who cares if it redeems them? I'm not saying that giving out candy makes censorship and what not justified. I'm just saying that it was a nice gesture. I mean come on, your statement is a perfect example of what I was saying.

About changes to policy regarding academic standards... that's a good thing. Face it, La Salle is seen as a "country club" by many people. And, in the past, those people had darn good reason. But this administration is going to great lengths to make the curriculum more rigorous. Next year, all juniors are going to have a semester of rhetoric, since the English department believes that rhetoric is instrumental to success later in life. Courses are being reevaluated to improve their quality. AP teachers have been told to teach new information AFTER the AP test in May, another new policy.

1. Funny how the juniors are spending some much time doing something this administration is clearly good at, in convincing people like you, that there are good things. The new admins discourse, from the candy to his conversation with classes, is clearly a show of rhetoric, no actual defense of policy issues. Especially on the wikipedia issue. Most people are seeing through that. Rhetoric sucks.
   1. Talk about an incoherent response? I'm rather unsure of what you're trying to say.
2. On AP classes. They are supposed to teach to a test, the final exam of which is in mid-MAY! Why, if the final exam is over, does anything new need to be taught after that? That’s not what an ap class is about. Its for getting college credit. Granted, maybe there is an argument for AP classes that substitue regular classes (e.g. AP English), but something like AP Computer Science, where there is no regular alternative, does not need a final exam.
   1. That's just wrong. The problem with AP classes is that they teach to a test. The purpose of AP classes is to teach a college level course in a high school classroom. The test is a way of proving that teachers have taught what they had to teach. Students who enroll in AP classes should have the desire to learn which doesn't just go away after the AP test. When we have two full weeks of classes after the AP test, we have enough time to learn more. Most AP classes substitute regular classes. AP English and history substitute regular classes; AP math is designed for after students finish the traditional college preparatory math curriculum; AP science is an extension of what we already had freshman, sophomore, or junior years; AP Language is also an extension of what we had before. AP computer science is the ONLY AP class at La Salle which is not what you call a substitute for regular classes.

Dress code? Come on now, it isn't that hard to have your tie at your collar and your shirt tucked in. Everyone can afford to have at least ONE pair of school shoes, and if they can't, there are a hundred others who could easily afford to give up a pair of shoes... you don't need to wear boots.

1. No one is criticizing it. We are just pointing out changes. And this year it’s the enforcement of it.
   1. You are not a student at La Salle, so you do not know about what is talked about in school. And yes, kids do criticize it.

Really, I just think it's a decent idea to chill the heck out. Administration: This article isn't hurting anybody, nor has it ever been. Students: If the administration wants to be the way everyone claims they are, then that's tough. You agreed to accept the administration and all its mandates when you enrolled at La Salle.

... does my writing style reveal my identity?

1. Sign your comments

a) No, I just don't feel like it. If you want to figure me out by IP address, be my guest. I like the game of anonymity.

2. This is not the place for your editorial rantings

a) Yes, it is.

--djrobgordon 06:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments from an outsider

First, please sign your comments with four tildes. It's simply a sign of respect to everyone on Wikipedia, and that you stand behind your comments.

I've read this with a lot of interest, as someone who was once a teenager (I think) and who also spent some time as an student affairs administrator.

As far as whether informing the public and asking questions about issues at the school is "ridiculous," or whether it will be relevant - it is, and it will be. The school may enjoy certain privileges due to its tax status, so it would certainly interest neighbors and other taxpayers; it's part of a nationwide network of schools, so their handling will certainly interest students, staff and parents affliated there... let's not forget that this also reflects on Catholic schools, many of which are struggling to stay open.

The comment that this will "all be forgotten" later on, ten to fifteen years later, is not strictly true. There are lots of court cases regarding some 15 year old who disagreed with his or her school. Run a search on New Jersey v. T.L.O. for a landmark search and seizure case which affects teenagers across the country. I was also surprised by the case involving a Oklahoman Wiccan who was accused of "hexing" a teacher, supposedly making the teacher ill, and suspended for 15 days, contra to Dettmer v Landon. I'm not sure of the current status of that case, but the ruling would not just affect teenagers, it would probably affect all practitioners of other religions.

If writing about this topic yourself might get you in trouble, you could ask other participants in Wikipedia to edit and source a factual, NPOV version of events occuring. The school has no control over what free adults write about events, and cannot expect one student to "guard" it for the remainder of the year. Students' right to free speech may be abridged while they are attending a private school, but that certainly doesn't KO everyone else's free speech rights. Their parents can comment. (I believe Harper Valley P.T.A. helped set the standard for kids not being held accountable for their parents. grin) A public school student could safely write about this issue.

In fact, why stop there? If you wrote this in order to inform people, then ask someone in the local media to cover this from a factual, objective standpoint. (If you need help finding this sort of person, just email me.) Noirdame 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)