Talk:Pearland High School

Controversies?

Is there a reason for no mention of the numerous cases of student/faculty sexual relationships over the past few years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.135.236.197 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are no reliable secondary sources (see WP:V) that say there are an unusual amount/a phenomenon of that... then we can't say anything about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Famous Alumni

Is there any??? —This unsigned comment was added by 70.248.252.11 (talk • contribs) .

SEVERE pov issues removed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one do not see any POV issues, and all information is relevant to the sources provided. I will not participate in a revert war however I do believe that the article is fine the way it is, and does not need to be reverted to the earlier, poorly organized and uncited versions. Perhaps we should not forget that an article does not simply have to regurgitate information, but can be used to paint a broader picture of the story, which is why I think the comments made by the previous user, albeit with several npov issues (which have been edited out), should be allowed to be represented in this article. User:p_mcmanis

You don't see POV issues? Well I do, and I think many others would as well. I have removed the irrelevant hatchet job reference to Sonia Serrano. This article is about the school, not Sonia Serrano. It also isn't about Nyla Watson which is why we haven't given details about her either. Both women should be treated exactly the same. Moriori 21:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

All possible pov issues have been removed. Now the article focuses only on the things that differentiate the school from any other. P mcmanis 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

cites needed

Notable's Lauren Lanning and Spencer Goodman need citations. Spencer Goodman has this, but there's no mention of the school there. --Rob 08:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It was suggested to me, that demanding a cite for Goodman and not for other items is POV. Now, some items here are sourced, others are not. Rather than tagging every unsourced item (to much clutter), or a general "sources" tag (to vague), I think the best thing to do is just remove anything if one can't find a source for it. Then, add back material (easily found in history) when a source is available. --Rob 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a modified copy of my reply to your Talk page message on this subject:

1. I agree with you that anything that is potentially libelous should get special treatment.
2. I don't agree that there is anything potentially libelous in this informaiton about Goodman. If his status as a murderer were in doubt, that would be one thing. If we said he committed murder because of a twisted environment at his high school, that would be another thing. However, we are just noting that the school has a famous alumni, who happens to be famous for a negative thing. There is no potential for libel against the school in that statement, therefore, I think it is wrong to compare it to WP:LIVING or to hold it to a higher standard.
3. I don't agree that this fact should be any quicker or slower to be removed if it is not verified. Since libel is not a concern, then there is no reason to treat a negative fact differently.
4. I think we have to be careful that Wikipedia is being used right now as a source, not at some future date when it is finished or something. Therefore, we need to be NOPV in today's version, not at some future date when all the facts are supposedly checked and verified.
5. There are 3 NPOV options I could support: (1) Tag the article with {{source}} but don't pick and choose which facts to tag a second time. (2) Tag all unsourced facts with {{fact}}. (3) Remove all unsourced facts.

I think (1) is the best solution. (2) is my second favorite. (3) is my least favorite. In some ways, (3) should be our ultimate goal, but doing that would be to hold this one article to an extremely high standard which I don't think is practical. Even articles that achieve "Good Article" status make it to that status without every fact having an in-line citation. Johntex\^talk 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion, and I am of course open to others, would be to move any actionable and/or questionable content from the article to the talk page, immediately. If and when we can locate verifiable sources for that information, we then move it back over. This, in my opinion, is the cleanest way to go about things, without marking up the article with {{fact}} templates everywhere. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi CSCWEM, did you consider my option (1), which was to Tag the article with one single {{source}} tag? Of course, I'm open to taking out all unsourced facts, but that will remove a lot of content which is almost certainly true. For example, info about how the name of the school mascot was choosen, info about the Pearland band and its former band director, etc. I would think that one single {{source}} tag would be a better option. Johntex\^talk 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the best option is CSCWEM's, next I would go with Johntex's (2) tagging all unsourced facts. I dislike the single {{source}} tag, because much of this article is adequately sourced to the "general reference" of the school web site (adequate for uncontested facts). Why brand the whole article as unsourced, if much of it is legitimate, and reliable? Note: if info I removed from the article is returned, I won't revert you (I did that unilaterally, so its fair to return it). --Rob 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem with {{source}} is that it is ambiguous, and it does not provide any insight to the casual passerby as to what is and isn't sourced or being disputed. Moving the contested text to the talk page and discussing it allows the original contributor to see why it was removed, and another person who may have a handy source to provide it, without potentially incorrect information lying in the article while waiting for a reliable source. Its the best of both worlds, in my opinion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets run with removing all the unsourced info to the Talk page then. Johntex\^talk 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the entire article?

Was deleting the entire article all right? I think the objective information, like "this school has so and so classes, programs, etc" can be left alone. And people can reference the school's site for this information, no? The biased implications, however, need to be changed - this can probably be done through minor edits. For example, I changed "has a successful math program" to "has a math program." Anyone against that idea?

• They need sources. We need reliable sources to say any of those things. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Record of removal:

For future reference, the following was removed in this edit:

From "Activities and clubs"

• Future Problem Solving has also started a club at Pearland High School.

From "Notable alumni"

• Spencer Goodman - murdered Cecile Ham, who was the wife of Bill Ham - the manager of ZZ Top. Goodman was executed 12 January 2000 by lethal injection.[1] ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

--Rob 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pearland 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/20150318194908/http://www.profootballarchives.com/chur00200.html to http://www.profootballarchives.com/chur00200.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) 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Pearland NGC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pearland NGC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21 § Pearland NGC until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)