Talk:Meridian High School (Virginia)

Untitled

What type of info, exactly?

Please stop the revert war

Can someone tell me how thurberchan does not conform to this?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked JamesThurber 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

-Look under "Links Normally to be Avoided:"

10. "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums, or USENET."

13. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject."

Yeah, but those rules are vague and often ignored. What is IMDb but a large discussion board? Besides, the link is there in the site's capacity as the student newspaper. If wikipedia has a policy against that, that is a policy that should be reversed.

I took a look at this link, and it looks more like a student blog than a newspaper. The Wikipedia guideline against linking to forums and blogs definitely applies to this link, which should not be added to this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Once again, the site is there in its capacity as a student newspaper. The Lasso gets a spot, so why doesn't the news board? It isn't a blog any more than any online newspaper is a blog, in that people write things and put them on the internet. thurberchan is interactive, and allows others to post stories they deem important. Wikipedia may not be a directory of links, but five links to school run things and nothing else gives one side of the school, and nothing else. One thing we can do here is direct people to more information that we cannot, according to the rules, give. All websites are blogs by your definition, and therefore, every link must be destroyed. JamesThurber 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers have an editorial staff which reviews and selects stories. This helps to ensure that the information in a newspaper is reliable, accurate, and useful. A web site on which anyone can post information is not a newspaper. It's a forum. I like forums. But they are not reliable sources of information. Clearly, all web sites are not blogs. Some web sites have editorial standards, people who check facts and verify sources before printing information. Those web sites are more reliable sources. Furthermore, your username is very similar to the name of the web site you are trying to add, which indicates a conflict of interest; you cannot add a link to a site which you own or maintain. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem that you have with thurberchan, as far as I can tell. Wikipedia has a general policy against linking to forums (which is not always followed), and thurberchan falls into that catagory. However, the site is an important part of the school culture, and deserves mention as such. As the page is not notable enough to merit an article (I will admit this), a brief summary of the two student run newspapers in the article (one run by the school, the other by students) should be added. Yes, this would still provide the link to thurberchan, but it would explain its presence and provide context, as well as providing the same to Lasso. I would be happy to write this if you approve. I understand where you are coming from, and I think this solution should be satisfactory for all sides. And for the record, I neither own nor maintain thurberchan. James Thurber grew up in Falls Church (lost his eye here), and he is also my favorite author. Evidently, other Mason students are proud of this heritage, and named it after him. JamesThurber 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am baffled by your continuing to refer to this forum as a 'newspaper,' when it clearly is not a newspaper. I have seen no evidence that this forum is "an important part of the school culture." Nor am I convinced that "school culture," the things that current students do socially, is particularly relevant to the article on the school as an institution, anyway. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I offered a solution. Just because you only have passing knowledge of the existance of the school doesn't mean that you know anything about it. thurberchan is important, and the only people who would report on it (Lasso) won't because the administration won't let them. Don't allow their censorship. A summery of the situation would more than suffice. If you want to make a note on it, fine. Say that it is a forum in bold letters. But no one is well served by a article that leaves out an important bit. If you only want the bare minimum, go work for Britanica. I'm sure they think that GMHS is of "low importance" too. JamesThurber 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much reason to continue discussing this. Wikipedia policies are very clear; this is not an appropriate link, nor is mention of it notable in this article. Your arguments aren't based in Wikipedia policy or drawn from reliable sources, and you haven't said anything in all of your comments that would actually constitute a reason to include this link. You haven't shown that this student web forum is a 'newspaper,' that it is 'important' to anyone but yourself, or that you understand the basic principles that Wikipedia is founded upon, like verification and no original research. Please, believe me, then, when I tell you that this link really doesn't fit within the Wikipedia way of doing things, and that this isn't the right place for it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you do not like my arguements doesn't mean that they are not valid. We can verify that thurberchan exists, that is easy enough. And if we are going to start being OR nazis than this article and a half of all the others have to go. I don't think that you understand what Wikipedia is if your definition of it is simply verification and no OR. What makes wikipedia different from a paper encyclopedia can be found here Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Simply put, we have virtually unlimited space to enlighten the world on any topic imaginable. We do this through democratic knowledge, in the best way possible. Hypothetically, here is how it should go. I write a summery of the two newspapers and link to them. Someone else comes in and cleans it up a bit. If someone has a problem with it factually, they change that bit, and if it is controversial, than it is discussed here. Yes, we should strive for citations whenever possible, because they give a more reliable tone to the proceedings. But they are not always available, and that doesn't make the information any less valid. It is obvious that Wikipedia has a large userbase amongst GMHS students, why not let them decide what is relevant and what isn't? You are turning the Wikipedia principles on their head by making these fascist, I-know-what's-best-trust-me posts, and taking the decisions away from the masses. If you are right, then the summery should be immediately shouted down by Mason students, and I will concede defeat (Marty doesn't count). But I will never concede that one person knows better than the rest of us, because he somehow can channel Jimbo Wales and tell us exactly what Wikipedia is about, regardless of whether there is any precedent for his opinions. JamesThurber 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We have now met the Godwin's Law threshold, but policy still clearly says that this link is not appropriate. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law, leaving aside the fact that it is a valid criticism in the way in which I used it (not to mention the fact that I didn't compare a person to the nazis, I said that a certain path was naziesqe), is a cop out that neither ends an arguement nor declares a victor. Just because you cannot come up with a valid counterpoint that doesn't give you the liberty to strawman the arguement to death. I'm growing increasingly impatient that the views of one or two NON-ADMINS are keeping this article from being a good one, full of facts, context, and information that someone might wish to know about the school. Your views of what Wikipedia is are odd and contrary to the nature of Wikipedia. With your policies in place, Wikipedia would just shrink and shrink until all that was left was a copy of a paper encyclopedia. The undo attention paid to this small change is preventing the natural flow of Wikipedia take its course. Please, Veinor, you seem sane and rational, please, either bring in more people to make these decisions or leave it up to the Wikipedia community at large, not just four or five people. FisherQueen, Amsmith170, and yes, myself, are all obviously biased. JamesThurber 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the term 'straw man' applies here. Are you sure it means what you think it means? Your understanding of the nature of Wikipedia appears to be in error, as it does not include the core policy of verifiability. Our core policies are working very well in helping us create a good encyclopedia, and they have not yet caused Wikipedia to shrink to the size of a paper encyclopedia. We'll go ahead and stick with them, I think. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Strawman is the misrepresentation of the oppositions position in an attempt to "defeat" that false position. Don't patronize me. Also, nice attempt to censor the opposition. You misrepresented what I said in order to invoke Godwin's Law. Furthermore, you continue to misrepresent my position. As I said, IF your policies were in place, THEN Wikipedia would shrink. I have addressed verifiability in an earlier posting, and just bringing up one point that has already been dealt with by me (with no adequate response by you) ad nauseum is no way to conduct a reasonable discussion. Since you seem unable to see reason, or even to discuss a compromise, I requested the opinions of others. And then you deleted my post. Nice going, I hope that helps you later on.

And finally, you are the one who misunderstands Wikipedia's core policies. The core policies of Wikipedia are more than verifiability, and the nature of Wikipedia is a hell of a lot more than just a regurgitation of stuff you found on other websites. JamesThurber 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history; I haven't deleted any of your posts. In fact, I restored them when an IP editor removed them with the summary 'removed personal attacks.' Your language toward me has been quite aggressive, and could certainly be read as a violation of the personal attacks policy, but I'd prefer to keep it here in case someone else wants to try to understand your reasoning. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you, but I had to restore them myself. The IP address is that of GMHS, so I suspect Marty, but that is unimportant. Again, I apologize for jumping to conclusions, that last comment is now directed at whoever deleted the post. A personal attack would be if I called you an idiot, I am just saying that I don't believe that us three and only us three should decide this. Nothing against you, I assume that you are a wonderful person who happens to be wrong in this case, and I disagree with your philosophy on Wikipedia. Cheers. JamesThurber 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; I am a wonderful person :)

We seem to be working from radically different Wikipedia policies. I've directed you to the core policies that are guiding my decision in this situation; WP:V, WP:EL, WP:OR, WP:RS- they all seem to clearly state that the addition of a forum, especially with no sources verifying its significance, would be inappropriate. You appear to be convinced that your understanding of policy is better; maybe you could link me to the policies and guidelines that support the addition of this forum? -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed exactly why these policies either support me or do not apply in this case in my previous postings. As it is, I see no reason to go on arguing against someone who isn't going to change her mind. JamesThurber 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that verifiability is more core than external links; it is a policy, while the external link rules are guidelines. Policies are only broken once in a blue moon, and I honestly don't think that this is one of those cases. If we do not have any sources that this is an important part of school culture, we cannot just take somebody's word for it. And I fail to see how verifiability either supports you or doesn't apply; 'no original research' is also a policy which doesn't seem to support you. If the school newspaper is being censored, then we can't write about it. Just because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia doesn't mean we don't have standards and anybody can write about their toenail clippings. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I would like to add that the George Mason High School FIRST Robotics Team also made it to the semi-finals of the 2007 Chesapeke regional competition, and recieved an award for engineering innovation. Since I cannot post this, this is the next best thing. I think that the protection of this page limits the rights of students to share information about their school in an open forum. I would like to see the page become unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapzmcgee (talk • contribs) 2007-03-22T22:56:46

This page is only semiprotected; any user account more than four days old should be able to edit it. CMummert · talk 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not the motto, in any way shape or form.

Deletion?

Y'know, this really isn't a relevent article. The 'Notablility criteria' fits in here, and the fact that it scored nationally doesn't make it worth its own article. Plus the constant vandalism dosent help (but I must admit, all of mine made it through the protection. hooray misinformation!). Kniobo

Y'know, I don't think the opinion of someone who can't spell and admits that he vandalizes is really that important, but that's just my opinion.

[[1]] L2P noob

robotics team

What is wrong with putting the robotics team website on this wiki page? it relates to the school. i posted it up before but it got taken off? i thought this was a wiki about schools and their student programs and stuff about them, why deny my privalage to add one school's proud teams website on there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.241.194 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

i see you guys kept the link this time, thanks why was it removed the first time? didn't like the connent or something? or did it have the same colors of therburchan? (FYI RED AND BLACK ARE SCHOOL COLORS! and the 1418 team colors)

thurberchan

so whats wrong with adding a link to a student run website? where students of GM can chat about what ever, anonymously it provide inside information about the school from first account witness it's like a live servey

and fish you mentioned above a conflict of interested i think thurber made some valid points even though he is promoting his site but at the same time the person refusing to take of the link is someone on the school staff who dislikes the website

so both sides are pretty much "in conflict of interest"

oh and by the way talking about newspapers and validity, what is the editorial section so posed to be? thats in the newspaper... and lasso online is just what students want to post, only difference between thurberchan and lasso online is one has better grammar than the other

(this is from someone affiliated with that website, expressing my views)

also has user thurber stated above in his link

"wiki rules"

What should be linked

• 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
• 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
• 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
• 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

THIS LINK COMPLIES WITH ALL THE ABOVE! so why shouldn't it be allowed to be posted? the site is pretty much a live interview and gives reviews, it is neutral content, the material accurately shows the students of GMHS so what is wrong with the site? because some one from the administration doesn't like it?

Because the link is not a reliable source; forums are usually never linked due to their lack of fact checking. Eyewitnesses can often make mistakes, so we leave it to third-party sources to perform analysis. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record: I have no affiliation with the school or the website. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

how is this not a reliable source? it's a primary source it's the collection of the thoughts of GMHS students first hand not altered. Ok so eyewitnesses make mistakes, so those that saw 9/11 were wrong in seeing that it happened at the time because there was no third-party source to confirm it that second. There is plenty of wrong information in lasso online especially since the reporters aren't there first hand and don't get the facts right and that is still posted. oh and FYI thurberchan does have thirdparty sources, if anyone sees anything wrong they comment on it / fix it. (like we do here)

Exactly. It's a primary source. Secondary sources are generally considered more reliable than primary sources. And if they do indeed use third party sources... just use those sources directly. No need to involve thurberchan. Also, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided number 10: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.". Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

it's not a "networking site" it's anonymous and what do you mean secondary sources are more acurate? did you skip history class? It's called primary for a reason. because it's the main source and you use secondary to back up the main. everyone writes by their point of view there for nothing is completely reliable, read any text book and you will see this.

It's a "discussion forum". And let me put it this way: who's more accurate, the people who witnessed 9/11 and panicked, or the historians who have access to more information and can get a composite of accounts? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

neither. both are wrong.

• side note

oh and thurberchan official site claims they have nothing to do with the school or any clubs with in it. so i guess they can't be affiliated to the school then they get no link... unless they were to be come a club.

Kindly stop the lies. The front page of thurberchan says, and I quote: "Thurberchan LLC is not affiliated or associated with ANY organization or club of any kind, related to the school or otherwise." This does NOT say that it isn't related to GMHS. In fact, it also says on the front page that, and I quote: "This [thurberchan] is the newly established imageboard for use of people associated with GMHS". Knocks several holes in your arguement, doesn't it? That would be one of those much extoled primary resources.

OK, kindly show me why this is a reliable source. The policy on reliable sources says that they must be published; this certainly isn't. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that since the administrators of thurberchan have expressed very clearly that the purpose of the site is to serve the students, alums, etc. of GMHS, we can assume that the purpose of the site is to serve the students, alums, etc. of GMHS. It is very clearly about the school, I don't think that the fact that it isn't run by the school necesitates its deletion from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesThurber (talk • contribs)

Don't worry, this is not one of the most important arguments against including it. In fact, I will freely acknowledge that the web site is, indeed, about GMHS. The most important arguments against including this web site in this Wikipedia article are: 1) It is a discussion forum, which are specifically listed at the external links guidelines among the kinds of links to be avoided, and 2) there are no reliable sources which support that this web site is an important source of information about this school, nor does the web site itself meet the definition of a reliable source. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The title

It occurs to me that this article has the wrong title. George Mason High School would be a better title, don't you think? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, however, as I am not a 1337 wiki h4xx0r like you, I do not know how to move a page, so go ahead.

HUH?Amsmith170 11:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:George mason hs.gif

Image:George mason hs.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Falls Church's "Only" Institution?

The following sentence in the article makes no sense: "GMHS, established in 1952, became the City's only institution." Well, actually, there are plenty of institutions...the City Council...the library...the courts...the police department. Any disagreement? If not will strike it in 14 days. HAJ1300 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sports & activities, notable alumni

What happened to those sections? Why were they deleted? Mason has notable sports teams, and some notable alumni, I don't understand why those sections were entirely dismantled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.118.207 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Mason High School. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://patch.com/virginia/fallschurch/its-official-fairfax-water-purchases-falls-church-water-system-for-40-million
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040227015048/http://www.fccps.k12.va.us/gm/faculty/ferentinos/WebResources/NAACP.htm to http://www.fccps.k12.va.us/gm/faculty/ferentinos/WebResources/NAACP.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George Mason High School. 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/20090125162726/http://www.fccps.k12.va.us/gm/ to http://www.fccps.k12.va.us/gm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006071154/http://www.fccps.org/about/fastfacts.pdf to http://www.fccps.org/about/fastfacts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714202958/http://www.nscaatv.com/rankings/4151/Spring/men/National/LastPoll to http://www.nscaatv.com/rankings/4151/Spring/men/National/LastPoll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724080641/http://fcnp.com/sports/12026-mason-girls-5-peat-as-state-soccer-champs.html/ to http://www.fcnp.com/sports/12026-mason-girls-5-peat-as-state-soccer-champs.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)