Talk:Mater Dei High School (New Jersey)

Article renaming

School was renamed back in 2010 to Mater Dei Prep. Requesting official change to reflect the name as see on all sections of the official website despite the forthcoming closure in June 2015. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mater Dei High School (New Jersey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160719163631/http://www.dioceseoftrenton.org/monmouth-county-schools/ to http://www.dioceseoftrenton.org/monmouth-county-schools/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151216034244/http://www.njsiaa.org/sites/default/files/document/15-16%20Member%20Schools%20League%20List%20Short.pdf to http://www.njsiaa.org/sites/default/files/document/15-16%20Member%20Schools%20League%20List%20Short.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The links in question have been replaced with working links. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mater Dei High School (New Jersey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214103729/http://portal.dioceseoftrenton.org/school-directory to http://portal.dioceseoftrenton.org/school-directory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206160322/http://materdeiprep.org/Announcement_of_MDP_Extension.pdf to http://materdeiprep.org/Announcement_of_MDP_Extension.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Material that shouldn't be in an article should be removed no matter how long it's been there

I support User:Doug Weller actions for removing inappropriate material, and would welcome discussions here on what the circumstances would be (if ever) where an article about a school should be turned into an article about a crime.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason the material is under discussion here at all is because of this edit which claimed that the issue was that there was "no mention of a conviction". My edit was purely intended to restore sourced content *WITH* sourced details of the conviction.

Are you arguing that a crime committed by a faculty member at a school against a student for which the connection to the school and the details of the conviction are referenced to reliable sources is "inappropriate" under any and all circumstances? Are you claiming that the mention of that crime in an article that broadly covers other details of the school means that it has been "turned into an article about a crime"? If this matter won't be taken seriously and is going to be blatantly misrepresented in cartoonish fashion, is there any possibility that such incidents won't be systematically whitewashed from an encyclopedia that claims to be WP:NOTCENSORED? Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies did say that when he tidied up the revert, but he didn't do the revert. User:Johnuniq reverted and explained why. It's been a long time since you were blocked for not offering good faith, but now you've accused me of bad faith in giving you an appropriate 3RR warning, and suggesting that at least Johnuniq and I, and perhaps ClemRutter, are trying to blatantly misrepresent this matter in cartoonish fashion. Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And NOTCENSORED clearly doesn't apply here. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the first reference is a 404 for me. The sources shown do not indicate this occurred at the school or at a school function, so I don't see why it would be part of the article. Second, the sources do show that as soon as the administration became aware of an issue, they turned it over law enforcement as they are supposed to do. I don't see how this is an issue that needs to be covered in the article. Not to mention naming the teacher is a BLP violation.

Bigger picture look: this happens with a fair amount of regularity. First, the incident should surpass NOTNEWS by having sustained and far- flung coverage. This one doesn't. Second, the incident should be related to the school by something more than the people involved being associated with the school. Either it happened at the school or a school function, or, more commonly, the school tried to bury it. That last piece is what brought the multiple instances of abuse by priests to encyclopedic level, also the incident in Steubenville, Ohio and at Hamilton High in Arizona. Here, it looks like the school did exactly the right thing.

I would oppose any inclusion of this outright as off-topic, NOTNEWS, and as it was, BLP. John from Idegon (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Alansohn, will you ever learn good faith? "...which claimed that the issue was that there was "no mention of a conviction""? Well, fuck yes there was no mention of a conviction in the material which an IP removed, a removal I endorsed in my edit summary, and so my claim is actually correct, since I, and only I know me, indeed believe that that is why I approved the removal of the material. Duh. If this matter was so hugely important, with the BLP involved, one would have expected that a conscientious editor like yourself would have, you know, included the plea deal and the conviction five years ago--it's not like anything in New Jersey escapes your attention. Now, I will gladly accept John from Idegon's analysis of the sources; ordinarily, if the requirements are met (conviction, widespread notice, etc.) I would not oppose inclusion, but here I do--and I have not seen any reasonable argument for inclusion (NOTCENSORED is ridiculous, of course, as ridiculous as IDONTLIKEIT). Drmies (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies, content was removed, *YOU* raised the issue of a source to support a conviction and "fuck yes", I did the research and inserted the source *YOU* insisted needed be added to address *YOUR* concern in good faith, so my claim is also factually correct. Now that you have discovered a standard five years after the fact, what exactly is it that you expected me to do five years ago!?!? "Fuck yes", you didn't show up five years ago, so "fuck yes", what more should I have done other than to act in good faith to your request for a source? Alansohn (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • "which claimed that the issue was...": please choose your words carefully. And I find it odd that you see the need to revert a couple of experienced editors, twice. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Many thanks to John from Idegon for his accurate description of the way we write articles about schools. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a Good (or bad) Schools Guide, nor is it a newspaper. For more details, please also see WP:WPSCH/AG, particularly the sub-section at WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • • "which claimed that the issue was...": please choose your words carefully. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the standard for inclusion of such incidents?

Is St._Paul's_School_(New_Hampshire)#"Senior_Salute"_rape_allegations_and_trial this material encyclopedic? What about Parsippany_Hills_High_School#Incident? There are probably thousands of such sections describing such sexual assault incidents. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• That is an enormous amount of sources, suggesting the breadth of coverage required. Plus, the matter seems directly related to the school, no? Drmies (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• WP:OSE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, This is exactly how *NOT* to have a conversation. I am not proposing that content should exist here because other stuff exists; I am asking for a discussion as to what the objective standard is suing examples of two articles . All saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS demonstrates is that there is no standard whatsoever. Do you believe there is an encyclopedia-wide standard and if so what is that standard? I'd rather see a broader conclusion here rather than fight this battle one article at a time, as an appeal to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would suggest. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously the people commenting here cannot meaningfully discuss a project-wide guideline about when to include controversy sections. You might try WP:VPP if there is a proposal, or WP:WPSCHOOLS. Very few guidelines/policies spell out an algorithm to determine whether text should be included in an article because it all depends. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I know of no policy that is based on an algorithm, but is what you suggest is that there is no standard and that you prefer to fight this issue one article at a time? You know of no standard, but this article violated it which is why you felt obligated to remove content here, but only here? What did you mean by the edit summary "WP:UNDUE unless there is a secondary source that has written about the effect on the school; write an article on the person or incident, but it's coatracking here", which appears to be a standard that almost no article could meet? Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• My edit summaries do not have to meet the impossible standard of applying to all articles at all times. It is standard procedure for coatracked material to be removed from articles, and anyone wanting the material has to demonstrate its relevance (WP:DUE) to the topic of the article. There is no guideline that every bad thing that ever happened at a school, or every bad thing done by school staff, should be reported in an article about the school. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently, John from Idegon is either stalking my edits or he believes that there is an actual policy here to be applied, per this edit, which he calls a "BLP violation" in the edit summary. Is this the standard we're looking for, which would seem to apply to any mention of a person, as at St._Paul's_School_(New_Hampshire)#"Senior_Salute"_rape_allegations_and_trial, where a student is mentioned by name? Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Alansohn, but who are you talking to? If you want to make stalking allegations, please do so at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Himself, obviously. I'm sure as hell not going to entertain such a bad faith, downright stupid allegation. I went to a link posted in a conversation I'm participating in and reverted a blatant BLP violation. On face, we cannot put an allegation, even a substantiated one, in an article regarding a not famous person. About St. Paul's.... that's not so clear and once again, OSE. I don't have any obligation to edit any article. But whatever. I expect no less. Echoing Doc.....ANI is thataway. And Alan, you've been asked not to ping me before. I've got a watchlist and I know how to read. John from Idegon (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Attendance and demographics

The attendance and demographics information is sourced to the latest National Center for Education Statistics report. This is the standard reference for such information for US high schools. The unsourced claim [1] is for a 40 % increase in overall school attendance (and a 370 % increase in the number of Black students)..If such a significant change has occurred since the current NCES report (2017-2018) then it should be reported, but it must be reliably sourced. Meters (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)