Talk:Salesian College Preparatory

Non encyclopedic content

Some non encyclopedic content has now been removed. Please refer to the guidelines for school articles at WP:WPSCHOOLS.--Kudpung (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

More non encyclopedic content has now been removed. Please refer to the guidelines for school articles at WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG .--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

More non encyclopedic content has now been removed. Please refer to the guidelines for school articles at WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sex abuse

As per our entire article on the subject of sex abuse in the Salesian Order titled Sexual abuse scandal in the Salesian order this content should not be reverted. It is cited. All the priests are dead anyways so BLP does not apply. Only the former principal is alive. I diligently searched for information on the school to expand the article and simply added what the sources stated. That's all. It can be rewritten or copyedited but not reverted or I am calling in the cavalry!99.145.194.98 (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:MEAT, WP:OWN, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You have at least three editors opposing your actions. Content is not decided by verifiability (although it's required) , it is decided by consensus. You have three editors opposing you. One of them has removed it again. It stays out unless or until a compromise is reached or you sway those opposing you that your preferred version is better. I'd suggest the former. My suggestion would be to add one sentence in the history section in the proper chronological order stating something about several instances of sex abuse occurring over the years they occurred and incorporating the Wikilink above. John from Idegon (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this historic issue to the talk page, it helps us to understand your viewpoint, but it would be more helpful if you registered and edited under a username. Suggesting you have a cavalry regiment of sockpuppets on call is not helpful. One editor was permanently blocked for editing the same topic on the the Salesian College (Rupertswood) deceptively. When touching legal issues it is good to have established a profile. Sexual abuse scandal in the Salesian order#Abuse in the United States of America is the correct place to put the details of the horror. These events may be the most notable events in the history of the school, but they are history. The focus of the article is the school and undue weight must not be put on a series of historical events.

Please see WP:WPSCH/AG for the sections that are expected. To build up your profile you could try improving references on St John Bosco High School Bellflower, they all come from the primary source- the school, and here you should place a back link to the abuse scandal- but keep it to a one line link back to Sexual abuse scandal in the Salesian order (SASintheSO). I suggest the line the school was involved in the decades long Salesian sexual abuse scandal Remember that Wikipedias BLP guidelines on privacy are far stricter than that of newspaper- report convictions not unproven allegations.

I would suggest the paragraph on the Rupertswood article is similarly contracted and the removed material merged into SASintheSO. In SASintheSO, more work should be put into Belgium and Holland. ClemRutter (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The priests are dead so BLP does not apply, I don't think it should be overlooked this school itself not the order was found complicit in the horrors, I only have one account here I must've been logged out. I never edited the other high school and know nothing about it.Ndołkah (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I was caught by that one once. The priests are dead but we cannot guarentee that their victims are dead, we must also consider the interests of family members. A further test is that 'information is relevant to the readers complete understanding of the subject' To many, the subject is 'Salesian College Preparatory' not the abuse. Do try to have a look at the articles on other Salesian schools- that lack even a reference, just don't go over the top! ClemRutter (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not go over the top, I expanded a bit on your suggested wording and I did not name names but it was already removed. I don't think we censor names for people like Scott Peterson for example because of what his family might think. If it's out there in the media and books and magazines we are not adding we are just reporting what was found by the primary sources by the secondary sources. I think to have a complete understanding of the school you should know about its controversial mascot, it's STEM program, it's awards, it's boy's and girls club, some of which I added myself and sourced as I wanted to expand on this one when I discovered the "horrors" which where unbeknownst to me. How do you suggest we avoid constant edit conflicts here? I made sure not to go over the top perhaps I have it all too much weight but it shouldn't be completely whitewashed either.Ndołkah (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG i just reviewed the article for Salesian College (Rupertswood) OMG they just can't keep their hands off of them can they? That's why I left the church for the longest time it creeps me out. You never hear about pagans doing this kind of thing do you?Ndołkah (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Found another article[1]hereNdołkah (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

How about "The school was involved in the decades long Sexual abuse scandal in the Salesian order. This included several cases where this particular school's priests was found complicit posthumously and the victims awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation by the courts, with the two payouts occuring in 2006." it is supported by the existence of the other article and the sources.[2][3].Ndołkah (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah, I think you're on the right track, but your wording is too vague (for instance "decades long" and "hundreds of thousands"), and could be construed as not coming from a WP:NPV. I'm also leaving out the 2000 incident as it was a charge, but not a conviction.

• I propose adding into the appropriate chronological order (as a paragraph in the history section with no subheader) - In 2006, as part of a larger Sexual abuse scandal in the Salesian order, two instances of sexual abuse occurring between 1969 and 1979 at Selesian High School (now Selesian College Preparatory) resulted in a settlement of $700,000 to one victim and a jury award of $300,000 to another. Orville1974 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

**Conditional support - as long as it is just a paragraph in the history section with no subheader. To add a subheader would put undue emphasis on the subject, a violation of WP:RECENT. John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC) See below. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I've amended the proposal per your recommendation. Orville1974 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok that is progress and it looks good. What about the third case? And also I believe it was 600,000 for the second case not 300,000.Ndołkah (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I addressed the third case in my response to you above. It's a charge, not a conviction, so I've intentionally left it out. The source I cited (and the one you mentioned at the very bottom of the talk page) states a $700,000 settlement and $300,00 jury award (the article came out about 5 months after the award). The other source you used above says a $600,000 jury award for the same case [4] (this article came out shortly after the verdict). The Contra Costa Article said $700,000 and came out at about the same time as the $600,000 SFGate article [5]. So we have two $700,000, one $600,000, and one $300,000 (with other out of area articles that syndicated the $600,000 amount, like Albequerque). The October article is the only one that mentions the $700,000 settlement, so maybe there was confusion about the settlement vs. the award?

Due to the uncertainty, perhaps it should read as above but end with " . . . preparatory)" and contain nothing about the amounts. Or it could read, . . . Preparatory) resulted in approximately $1 million in combined settlements and judgments? I personally prefer leaving the dollar amount out (the first option), rather than estimating an amount based on conflicting sources. Orville1974 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's just say approximately then, I think it should be mentioned.Ndołkah (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it was actually 300,000 as per this article the initial award was 600,000 but after the appeal it seems it was the other figure.Pulpit NonfictionNdołkah (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is also worth noting the victim in the 300,000 settlement is the founder of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.Ndołkah (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Former principal is actually got convicted per this articlehouse of the accusedNdołkah (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that. The archbishop was convicted per the article; however, the author is careful to call the principal's actions alleged (check the last names and you'll see it's two different people being talked about). As for the founder of SNAP, there were multiple victims at this school, but the proposed sentence above doesn't name them. If a reader wants to know more, they can follow the Wikilink to the abuse article itself. Orville1974 (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you may be getting the settlement and the award mixed up, too. if it was 600,000 appealed to $300,000, that would be the jury award being appealed down. The settlement would still be $700,000. So now we're looking at $1 million exactly ($700,000 settlement and $300,000 jury award) which is right where we somehow started in the proposal above :) . Orville1974 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Almighty then, well then I trust you on that let's add it in then.Ndołkah (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, I don't see the encyclopedic value in even mentioning dollar amounts. We are talking about more than two victims now too. Well, both two and more than two can be stated "multiple". The payout date isn't particularly important either. So why don't we say something along the lines of "Between 1969 and 1979, multiple instances of sex abuse resulted in the school being held liable for substantial monetary damages.(refs)" John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This covers all the salient facts and is brief and to the point. I have no problem with adding 3 citations so readers can easily read more if they wish. Encyclopedia articles summarize what others have written. Excess detail on a particular bit in history just make it harder to navigate through the information for the reader. It's much like adding the score of the state championship game. The important fact is they won; the score is just trivial detail. John from Idegon (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should go with what the sources state.Ndołkah (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are you claiming that something either Orville or I have written doesn't follow the sources? John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, what I am saying is that the sources seem to point out the sum paid out rather prominently and we should follow that as it is more comprehensive IMO and WP:SOURCE does state we should aim for accuracy.Ndołkah (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I also found this video accusing Kamala Harris of stonewalling investigations into child sexual abuse by the Archdiocese of San Francisco including what happened at Salesian High School.[6]

References

Hi Ndołkah. You jumped the gun on your bold edit by a couple of days, but it seems the other individual's we were waiting on before making the edit are probably not going to weigh in, so no harm in this case. I do recommend (especially for controversial edits where you're seeking consensus on the talk page) waiting a week or so to give everyone a chance to weigh in (WP:NODEADLINE). There is a typo, in your edit, so I'm tweaking it now. Orville1974 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok thank you for that, it looks better with the fix.Ndołkah (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I found more sources and added a new sentence as there have been new revelations.hereNdołkah (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mascot change

The school is adjacent to the Lytton Rancheria and offended many of the natives there with the chieftain mascot of 2006 and years past, why was this removed?Ndołkah (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's clearly explained in the edit summary. John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I also changed your section header. It's clearly in violation of WP:NPOV and since I was there, I capitalized it correctly. Are you aware this article isn't controlled by, nor is it for, the school? I'm guessing not, as your remarks appear to presume some sort of knowledge about the school and the community. An encyclopedia article is made up of material paraphrased from reliable sources. Your comments here should reflect that. John from Idegon (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Which section header did you change I did not notice that one, but why remove the sourced content about the racist mascot? How would you like your tribal people to be used as a cartoon for others amusement? The Lyttons next door and Ohlones, Miwuk, and Pomo and others first nations certainly did not. It should be preserved for posterity and Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view about this matter and include it. I grew up in the community and the mascot issue was in the press quite a bit and for years, it really should be included, even if rewritten to improve it. By paraphrasing the reliable sources such as the Contra Costa Times or San Francisco Chronicle. My comments will reflect whatever I want them to thank you very much, we are all entitled to speak freely.Ndołkah (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If you type "racist mascot" one more time without citing a reliable secondary source directly (ie publication, date, author, page number etc), I will be asking that you be blocked. That is POV. Period. "Racist" is a highly charged subjective word. No one cares about your opinion. This is not a blog. Everything here comes from reliable published sources. I have given policy based reasons for all the changes I've made. If you object, either formulate logical arguments based in reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies or drop it. Consensus dictates content and the editor wanting the content in the article is responsible for gaining it. Please stop wasting others time. As I've told you on your talk, and frankly you should know if you are going to edit here, every single thing in any article on Wikipedia must be paraphrased from reliable sources. What you "know" and your opinions are both totally irrelevant. John from Idegon (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Salesian to Replace 'Offensive' Mascot: RICHMOND: School Removed Chieftain for Cultural Reasons" stated that it was found "racist" by members of the community written by Kimberly Wetzel, Contra Costa Times, 2006. Perhaps someone can use the wayback machine or find it on Lexus Nexus? Go ahead and ask, I am Native American and it is racist you can't have be blocked just because I say a crudely drawn stereotypically generic Native man logo is racist because anyone without poor taste can make that determination. We deserve better. The consensus in Indian Country is that it is akin to blackface I highly suggest you educate yourself on the matter and this is just a talk page for crying out loud. I understand the process but this was already cited and in the article for some time I believe when you arbitrarily removed it. These mascots are very hurtful to people like me. I am not wasting your precious time I am working to achieve consensus and improve this article giving due diligence to the sources that I have found and what they honestly say. The history of the mascot and this small victory for first nations should be included in the article and preserved for posterity.Ndołkah (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

So far we also have this sources that statesOther schools have retired Native American-based mascots in recent years, including Salesian High School in Richmond, which went from the Chieftains to the Pride in 2006.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndołkah (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Anything more than a brief mention (if any mention at all) would give this undue WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT. Nothing about this school's former mascot is significantly different than the staggering number of schools, sports teams, bubble gum brands, cigar shops, comic strips, movies, etc. that have demonstrated a systemic insensitivity to one race or another. Orville1974 (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Orville. Changing mascots at schools that use or used some Native American iconography is commonplace. Content should be distinguishing. It's far more noteworthy in the instances where it's been made an issue and no change was made. I do not see a reason to mention it, but would not object to one sentence in the athletics section stating something along the lines of "In XXXX, the school changed its mascot from A to B, due to the nationwide controversy over use of terms associated with Native Americans as athletics mascots.(ref) Just as with the sex scandal, there is no reason to ho into great detail here when we have an article that explains it to link to. John from Idegon (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok John, do you want to go ahead and add that in or shall I? The only other thing I would say is that the school did refuse to change it for years ever since it was brought up by Native America which is why the old article which I read made sense to me to keep any chance of finding it still?Ndołkah (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also since the article doesn't have that much content I propose adding: In 2006, the school changed its mascot from the Chieftain to the Pride, due to the nationwide controversy over the use of Native American related mascots in athletics.Ndołkah (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - The exact wording proposed directly above (with the word the added between over and use ("the nationwide controversy over the use").
• Comment - @Ndołkah: did you mean to post this support comment in the section above regarding the sexual abuse? If so, please move it up to that section. If not, please remove your !vote here (since you proposed the change, your support is already noted). :) Orville1974 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it ok to alphabetize notable alumni?

Just wondering because that was also reverted!Ndołkah (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF I'm sure your efforts got wiped as a part of the repetitive reverts a couple days ago. I don't think anyone would mind you setting the alumni straight again. Orville1974 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok I will go ahead and change it then.Ndołkah (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I alphabetized the list by surname. — Archer1234 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah so that is supposed to be how it goesNdołkah (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Salesian schools

Can we mention it is one of the Salesian schools and have a see also to the other 16 and counting Salesian SchoolsNdołkah (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah, I think this is covered in the proposal under sex abuse above. Orville1974 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No this is something entirely different this is a proposal to link the opening section to the article on the network of schools article not the sex abuse article. It seems that it is missing. Furthermore I propose a see also section that states it is one of 16 Salesian secondary schools for which we have articles. I think it is worth noting.Ndołkah (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede is a mess of Wikilinks. I think it needs less, not more. The Salesian schools article and the Salesian School disambiguation page should really be combined. I think a See Also link at the bottom of this article would be more than enough. I will probably scrub the Salesian schools article soon and merge it and the dab page together, anyway. Orville1974 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I therefore added it to a later section where it clutters less, do you think the intro should be rewritten then?Ndołkah (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

John reverted my simple edit again and is acting like he owns this article without discussing. I propose we add Saleaian College Preparatory is one of at least 16 Salesian schools.

@Ndołkah: That's exactly the way it's supposed to work WP:BRD. You boldly added it, he disagreed by reverting it, now it's brought here to discuss it and work out any differences of opinion. However, address the topic not the individual. I recommend editing your comment to focus on the issue and try to gain consensus for the change you'd like to make. Per my comment above, I personally think a See Also link at the bottom of the article is more than enough. It appears it's only us three discussing this aspect of the article, so reaching a consensus shouldn't take very long. Orville1974 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about this school, not a group of schools. There is already a link to Salesian schools in the lede. I can see that as identifying information, much like listening the school district in a public school article. The LEDE serves two purposes in a Wikipedia article: to give basic identifying information and to summarize the high points in the rest of the article. Salesian schools are not discussed anywhere in this article and they shouldn't be. We already have a link to the article about them. That's enough. Additionally, there is never a time when we should say "about 16". Obviously there is a precise number of schools. You cannot possibly have "about" a number of schools. It sounds sloppy, like lazy research. Last point. We've done this before on Jesuit Cristo Rey schools. The consensus there was we cover the mother organization by linking. It also ended up with the only editor opposing topic banned from school articles indefinitely. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I just realized the last sounded threatening. I've struck it. That discussion drug on for 12 weeks and included overall about a dozen editors, with one being quite tendentious. No one is behaving that badly here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Don't support pending a compelling argument that hasn't been stated yet to include the recently reverted text. - I was agreeing to, at most, a See Also inclusion, which isn't needed if a Wikilink (which I forgot was already added a few days ago just before my copy edit--it's in the first sentence of the history section, not actually in the lede) is already present in the article. Orville1974 (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it was added after the See Also recommendation. That makes more sense to why I hadn't noticed when I made that recommendation. So I'm okay with one or the other (in the article or in a See Also section, but not both). John's rationale for it being included similar to the way a school district is in other articles makes perfect sense to me. I do want to note, right now it's not actually in the lede, it's the first sentence of the history section. John, I know you're much more experienced with school articles, so I'll defer to you as to where the school district is usually mentioned (the lede, a See Also section, or in the body of the article), as long as a link to Salesian Schools is included somewhere. Orville1974 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

So to clarify I thought it had been removed in one of the reverts, I am fine with it being in the history section unless it is usually in the lede which it is not contrary to the confusion that it is currently in the lead hehe. I don't know how many Salesian schools there are, that is a good question. There are two disambiguation pages on the matter, the don bosco schools and the salesian schools, the later we have 16 articles for ever since I created Salesiano Valparaíso, speaking of which anyone have any more content sources for expanding it? No threat taken! I think we can get along here man. I think we should have a link to the Salesian schools disambiguation up top however.Ndołkah (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

disambiguation link

with so many salesians, there should be a link to the disambiguation please don't revert thisNdołkah (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We normally don't link to disambiguation pages, since they don't actually help the reader understand the content of the article the link is coming from. Since Salesian Schools has it's own article, the link should be directly to it. As I mentioned earlier, I'll probably end up combining the Salesian Schools article with the the dab (disambiguation page) you just linked to, anyway. What will be left at that point will be a list article, which will introduce Salesian schools (from the content on their current article page), then list out all of the individual schools (from the current dab page) for readers interested in finding out more about a particular one. Since this is so closely related to the discussion above, and we're still waiting on John to weigh in, please pull the DAB (disambiguation link) you just added until the conversation regarding a general link to Salesian Schools is concluded. We definitely don't need multiple links to Salesian schools (in one form or another) in the article. Orville1974 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Never mind about the dab, I see John already pulled it. Orville1974 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds goodNdołkah (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sunday evening

I have refrained from commenting so far as the language being used on this talk page is far too personal, and has placed, any one who has tried to help, in the role of a combatant. So standing aside on a different continent, and outside any faith group I will make a few observations.

The guidelines we should all be following are Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and it should be written from a global perspective. At the moment, the entire stub is well punctuated, parochial trivia-- with a good infobox. For any school article we are looking for :

== History ==

== Governance ==

== School structure ==

== Admissions ==

== Curriculum == (Academics)

== Extracurricular activities ==

== Campus ==

== Awards and recognition ==

== Notable alumni ==

== Notable staff ==

== Former headteachers ==

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

* {{official|www.example.com}}

These sections need to be summarized in strong lead/lede

Commenting on the individual content until all of this has been done is pointless.

Our guidelines are strong on remaining neutral and not being negative about the school of today.

The problem we have here is that this college under another name is notable worldwide for only one thing -being involved in a thirty year long abuse scandal. We need to have wider advice on how to report it. We need to address it to maintain Wkipedias reputation as being neutral. WP:NPOV

Editors from other countries are under a further pressure as their national laws will interpret a failure to address the issue as condoning the behavior. (Yes, I intentionally bolded the warning). But too much Googling will imply to the courts that the editor has a prurient interest in the topic. Teachers and others with access to children must undergo an invasive police check.

All the sections apart from History are safe to edit, and need to be started. I advise that we hold back on the history section until we have a full article and a one sentence link to a general article on the Salesian issues can be included. It looks as if there are about 16 articles affected. ClemRutter (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

ClemRutter, this discussion is about this article and only this article. And frankly the notion that we cannot discuss individual content issues unless every section the guidelines suggest are here is nonsense. As is your entirely off topic discussion about background checks and laws in other countries. This article is about a US school and Wikipedia servers are in the US. No content here now or before was in violation of US law (although there was considerable content in violation of policy). Please stop muddying the waters. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes we have enough trouble agreeing on wording for the article as is and perhaps you should chime in as to how we should approach the judgements paid out as we could use another opinion (based on policy) up up and above. There are not 16 articles affected there are 16 schools named Salesian not all of them have been found to have had abuse occur at them in reliable sources, perhaps you should move your comments to the article on the schools or on expand the article on the abuse within the order?Ndołkah (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I gave a very considered response above. I hold back writing on US articles generally- trusting the judgement of the local editors. For a starter I have split the history section off from the rest, and advise that you concentrate on writing about the school as it is today. I went on the schools website, and found the school profile which can be downloaded as a pdf. It provides a few leads. It tells us the organisations that validate graduation- it gives a clue onto what the students will be obliged to study for their time there. I couldn't find any details of all the electives offered but there is this useful list that will need to be explained in a global context and wikified :

English I Honors (9)
World History Honors (9)
Spanish II Honors (9, 10)
AP Biology (10)
English II Honors (10)
AP Computer Science (10, 11, 12)
Spanish III Honors (10, 11)
AP Language & Composition (11)
AP U.S. History (11)
Chemistry Honors (11)
Pre-Calculus Honors (11, 12)
AP Calculus AB (11, 12)
AP Calculus BC (11, 12)
AP French (11, 12)
AP Spanish (11, 12)
AP English Literature (12)
AP Art History (12)
Comparative Religions Honors (12)
Economics Honors (12)
U.S. Government Honors (12)

All this can go into a new section -- Curriculum --. All this can be done openly. The history section can be expanded from the website too. They do not mention the abuse scandal years and at the moment neither should we- I see that a lot has been moved to a separate page which is the correct approach.

I have added a map module to the infobox- there are other ways to do that but I find that this give you the most control.

Read the guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines they will give you more ideas.

ClemRutter (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter! I disagree with your argument for not including the abuse scandal for these reasons: The school's choice to omit information that may reflect negatively on the perception of their school in their own publication of a highly-publicized issue (by multiple, independent third-party sources) that went on for a decade at this school is poor rationale not to include it in the article. The outcome of the cases has been resolved, and it is now a part of the school's history (so the "at the moment" remark, implying inclusion at some future time would be more appropriate, doesn't make sense--we don't have a conflict with WP:RECENT). However, considering WP:PROPORTION, we have chosen a brief mention with a wikilink to the separate article as the most appropriate way to include the information. Orville1974 (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Orville we don't just follow the primary source (the school) we follow reliable second party sources such as newspapers which cover the sexual abuse in detail.Ndołkah (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I am choosing my words very carefully. Please do not try read something into them that I did not say. I am advising a dedicated editor on the best strategy for developing this article. Any article on a school has the easy bits and the the more difficult bits. The easy bits we can use a primary source. A schools article has to be about the existing school. When John Doe is looking for a school suitable for Jemima, he will look at this article and get professional overview of what it offers- now -today. Getting more grisley, when there is a school shooting, every journalist in the world will google the school, and often repeat what wikipedia has said. You will see your lead appear verbatim on the first news report, and as the night progresses that will be removed and large chunks of the article will end up in their script. The prime focus of the school article is to describe todays school.

When we have that article we can explain how it got there.

What happened in the past was gruesome, and revolting but a lot more care must be taken on how it was written up. That occurs in the middle of the ==History== section, and to keep WP:PROPORTION we first need a section on the first 50 years, then we need a section on how it was involved in the Salesian SA scandal, the courts judgement etc. and how it reacted and changed itself in the light of the judgement. These references must be solid, secondary WP:RS. I have issued a strong warning above that underreporting and be as damaging to the editor as overreporting. I have said that removing the details of the abuse to another page is the correct approach. That page is barely more than a stub and needs a lot of attention- and WP:BLP care.

I am concerned that the weight of the incident is being minimised by trivia (WP:WEIGHT) such as golf tournaments and charity events. These are sentences that need to be oiked out and be put into another section, which I will probably do if no-one gets there first. ClemRutter (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Umm no it belongs on the school's page because it happened at this school, other article's shortcomings are their own.Ndołkah (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Read what I said again. A section is a part of the article- it is part of the page. History is a section. School is a section. Charitable works is a sub section. I did the edit on 20 June, you improved it on 22 June. Keep smiling. ClemRutter (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

map

the map on tyke infobox is wrong it shows the school being in el cerrito not Richmond where it is actually locatedNdołkah (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC).

Please, look at the source code, then correct it.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Have how idea just reporting it... it's been fixed thoNdołkah (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah I just copied the code from my user page and changed the numbers. I use my user page as my memory! You will find lots of editing links there. But I also have a User:ClemRutter/training page, which I keep lots of examples that I may need when I am teaching a course. Do have a look- do copy the examples and try them out on your /sandbox page (User:Ndołkah/sandbox). In this particular case- the coord of the school was out by 0.05 degrees. But as often happens there was a better way to do it.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We should include something about this

• A statement on the treatment of predator priestsNdołkah (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

What if anything should we include from the CNN video?

[7]Ndołkah (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Football Champs

It is sourced and their historic win of state championships should be includedNdołkah (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)