Talk:Lowell High School (San Francisco)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Lowell High School (San Francisco) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Schools (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Lowell's lawsuits[edit]

I have reverted edits by a particular user three times in the past ten minutes. Now I understand WP:3RR, so you guys can skip the usual schpeal. As mentioned on the user's talk page, the current references cited on this article cannot support the revised statements this user has given to the interpretation of events involving the Consent Decree as well as the two other lawsuits. I have subsequently rolled back (AGF) an edit combo, in addition to undoing two edits on two other minor sections. I have asked the user to to provide additional references to support his/her statements regarding the issues before adding the material back in. I hope there will not be an edit war regarding this subject, but neutrality of these subsequent cases are crucial in order to achieve a stable article in general, and the ability to utilize a stable version of this article for a Spoken Wikipedia file. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

True. I've saw an IP that he used today to promote NPOV, that guy got some serious issues. Should he come again, let me deal with him. BoL 05:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I didn't know if a weird admin was going to step in and randomly block me or something... haha! :D - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I just read up on that little discussion on that IP. WOW... that's all I can say. Whew, I thought I was being too harsh for a second there. (PS: "stop imposing your own politically correct, liberal viewpoint" uh if being neutral is being liberal, then wouldn't republicans be considered liberal when compared to the "actual" full political spectrum?) (PPS: Whoops, uh oh, I've had a smooch too much of Slavicek's class. *vomits*) - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
3RR is only if you revert past three times in 24 hours, and it does not apply to vandalism. BoL 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just awaiting for the "impending doom", like comments saying that I, being Asian, meant I have the upper hand blah blah blah blah blah. I'm just waiting for it so I can just bomb the response with factual data that I can support.  :) Then again, it IS 1am, so I might just wait until I get back from work tomorrow before I unleash my long caged side I haven't revealed since my debate class back at Lowell. I'll try to keep WP:CIVIL in mind, it'll be a very well educated and neutral tongue lashing, mainly geared towards a person's intelligence/ignorance rather than starting an edit war.  :) - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
All feelings set aside, apparently that user tried to post something on my user page rather than my talk page. It has been reverted without being read. We'll see if the user will finally learn to post on talk pages before making radical changes to the viewpoints of this mostly stable article version. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Jameson, it's taken me a few tries (and I'm still learning) about Wikipedia etiquette and how and where to post stuff--I couldn't figure out where to post comments and as you seemed to be the party responsible for taking down my comments, I was trying to reach out to you to engage you in dialogue. Still havng a bit of a hard time figuring out how to properly format this response...would welcome any guidance in this area. As I explained, I'm a member of the Lowell Class of '89 and a lawyer to boot, so this newfangled wiki stuff is a bit strange. I consider the comments posted inaccurate and radical, and think the perspective I can offer about the litigation and the facts surrounding it quite valid, as I was actually there. I am one of the founders of the Asian American Legal Foundation that helped to organize the litigation, and I think that I can thus speak from a position of authority about the motivations and thinking of opponents of the decree and racial preferences. To the extent that the article has been "stable" with respect to the information and viewpoint that you seem to endorse, it is largely because people like myself have not posted our own version of events or the other viewpoint, or because every posting that attempts to challenge the currently posted perspective gets promptly removed. I am happy to have both perspectives posted or viewpoints represented, but if you continue to insist that my first-person account of why the lawsuit was organized and relation of certain facts cannot be posted solely because it upsets the "stability" of the article and because it presents an opinion different than the opinion that is posted, I will escalate this to higher levels of Wikipedia administrators. I also vehemently disagree with your characterization of my viewpoints as "radical," as it reveals your own bias toward a viewpoint I think is both radical and factually inaccurate.Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng
What references, BTW, would you like me to provide, and how do I post those? Does a first person account, accepted by the US Congress, Senate and UC Board of Regents, qualify as a reliable source?Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng
As for Blow of Light, I find your comments and threats completely inappropriate. I am not trying to hide anything, including either my identity or contact information. I welcome a chance to discuss with you my perspective and to work out language that is consistent with the neutrality policy, but if you continue to make personal threats and attacks, like "I know who you are," and to characterize people who disagree with you as people with "some serious issues...Should he come again, let me deal with him," I WILL take the time to figure out how to bring your attitude and comments to the right levels of Wikipedia administrators. I helped organize the Ho litigation when I was 22, in the face of immense political opposition and with well-funded defendants, partially because I wanted to make sure that people who didn't have a voice could be heard. I am not going to withhold my opinion because of someone thinks the anonymity of cyberspace allows him or her to be a bully without consequence.Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng
This semi-civil debate aside, Wikipedia is the greatest information source I've ever seen, and I (almost literally) grew up in a library. I don't have as much time as I used to, but it's incredibly easy to spend hours and hours reading stuff. Incredibly powerful.Lchcheng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng
I suggest you review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for info on what and how to cite. Also know that others are now watching this and incivil comments are not acceptable by anybody. WP:WQA is the place to report those. (Yeah, lots of alphabet soup but they get the job done.) Pairadox (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Lee Cheng: Much congratulations to your establishment of your legal organization. I'm not sure how much of the "alphabet soup" links you've clicked on, but here's a more direct response...

  • When responding to user discussions, respond to user talk pages
  • WP:OR: No, first-person account will not be sufficient. To keep WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), content of this article should be written by material obtained from WP:RS (reliable sources). Biased opinions, analysis - which includes determination/definitions of a lawsuit, both sides of legal battles, etc., must be cited first, then analyzed and written with both sides in mind.
  • Your passion towards these lawsuits from first-hand experience may be genuine (and I'm not questioning that), but to keep neutral point of view, the current version is still the most "neutral" that I have seen after reviewing the sources that have been cited on the references section.

Before anything escalates: Read this.

  • Threatening to go to a Wikipedia administrator every time something does not go your way is not the way to settle an editing dispute. (Unless something very wrong is going wrong of course) (With all seriousness, I find it very annoying and reminds me of the tattletales from kindergarten.)
  • If you are very passionate in putting your two cents in, I suggest you work on a draft of what you want to change in a WP:SANDBOX article in your namespace. It works like a test article that is inside your user account's space, so it is not necessarily an article that is evaluated right away. This gives you time and a "sandbox" (hence its coined name) to play around with wording, formatting, coding, inserting references, tables, images, citations, etc. A good name to put this (you don't have to follow it, but it's a good naming scheme in case you want to backtrack and list your work-in-progress: User:Lchcheng/Sandbox01
  • Lastly, indirect insinuations/implications have given me a sense the an underlying legal threat was made against BoL. Please review Wikipedia:No legal threats. In addition, know that I am not choosing anonymity in cyberspace either, you'll find that my contact information as well as information about myself in real life is posted on my user page.

With that said, I will extend my connections to the legal community as well on this issue to see if there are NPOV issues with the current description of the Ho litigation and related legal sections on this article. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Jameson and others--thanks for the wikipedia tutorial. Holy cow. Will spend some time this weekend to get up to speed.

I am happy to engage in dialogue, to not involve higher level administrators and certainly, not threaten or actually engage in legal action. Any halfway decent lawyer knows that legal action is both inefficient and wasteful, and should be avoided at all costs unless something fundamental, like the civil rights of a historically oppressed group, is at stake. Jameson, I would suggest that you examine your own casual and rather supportive responses to BoL, whose unexplained remarks I continue to find both threatening and uncivil. I note that you did not ask him/her to follow the rules of this community with regards to civility, presumably because he/she supported your actions and perspectives. I would urge some real neutrality on this article. Neutrality should also not mean stability around a contested viewpoint. For instance, I certainly don't see support for these concepts: (1) "create a more equal distribution of race at Lowell, which was predominantly Chinese-American" [fact: why was the racial distribution unequal if admissions was based on race-neutral academic achievement, and Lowell was not predominantly Chinese-American--the caps kept the numbers between 40-45%), or (2) I don't know why the viewpoint of critics of the race-neutral diversity index should be allowed to express their opinion/present their version of the effect of the end of race-conscious/determinant admission (i.e. decreased number of URM students admitted using dramatically lowered scores), while opponents of race-conscious admissions programs are not allowed to post theirs (i.e. kids being allowed to go to schools in San Francisco without being limited by their ethnicity due to Ho). I'm happy to concede the URM point but I was trying to post an equally well-supported fact as well. Same basic standards should apply to all, with higher standards for those with more authority, like administrators. If you want to make inquiries to the legal community, I'd recommend reaching out to lawyers on both sides of this issue--hopefully we can end up with both sides of the matter presented.75.140.128.210 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng

Jameson, out of curiosity, how should I interpret comments like "I know who you are" and a characterization that I am someone with "some serious issues..." and a statement like "Should he come again, let me deal with him"? Again, if you are an administrator, I think you may want to consider a bit more neutrality than what you've demonstrated so far.

I can't wait for you to unleash your caged side, as I was also on the Lowell Forensics team. Any time you'd like to subject me to "a very well educated and neutral tongue lashing" about my "intelligence/ignorance," I'd be happy to dust off my credentials and facts to compare against yours. BTW, I'd expect nothing less than a "well-educated" tongue lashing from a Lowell grad (well, except for that guy who was apparently in the Symbionese Liberation Army--but for Wikipedia, I would never have known that!).75.140.128.210 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Lee Cheng

Er, hi, Lchcheng. You may want to read this... BoL 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And you, Blow of Light, may want to familiarize yourself with it also. Not signing in is not the same as using a sockpuppet, especially when the editor isn't attempting to use it for subversive reasons and is relatively upfront that it is the same person. A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Pairadox (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but you're not allowed to use it to avoid scrutiny, right? BoL 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What makes you think he was avoiding scrutiny? —Kurykh 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pairadox (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what, before this esclates further, I'm going to let Kurykh take over. I don't go to Lowell, nor do I know much about Lowell. BoL 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Wow, I have this page on my watchlist, but I always don't see the changes made on this page until I click on my watchlist in the morning. I guess I have to clear my watchlist again... but I digress...

LchCheng, there was a sentence I wanted to just clear up first. I am not a Wikipedia Administrator. (Now that we're clear on that...)

Familiarity to neutrality means keeping oneself openminded. However, Please understand where we, BoL, Kurykh, and many editors such as myself, keep this article in check, have seen many, many instances where neutrality of the article from the disputed idea that Lowell really isn't a great high school (vandalism from random users from other SF high schools), to former students manipulating Wikipedia to deploy a twist on a vending machine issue which was not notable, totally disputed, and completely unencyclopedic.

With that said, LchCheng, I suggest that if you are really so passionate about making changes to the Ho litigation and other sections, to start a sandbox article as I have suggested in my last comment above and begin working on a draft where the editors may review the neutrality in addition to proper citations, etc. When we do reach consensus, we'll work on editing the Lowell article to reflect your proposed changes +/- any modifications during the review.

In a nutshell, I'd like for you to shift your attention from neutrality to objectivity. As you are working on the sandbox article, if you need help, please feel free to ask any of the editors around, but let's try to focus ourselves to improve this article, not just sit around with the stalemate debate over neutrality. We can resume those discussions when we begin review your proposed changes. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Alumni Dynamic Listing[edit]

Do we have a need to use {{alum}} and dynamically list the alums that way they can be sorted by name/grad year? - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 05:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. —kurykh 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
On it. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 07:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Margret Cho...[edit]

So... since she didn't graduate from Lowell - does she belong in our "Notable Alumni" section or should we change it to "Notable Attendees"? Better yet, if she's already mentioned in the SOTA article why not just remove her entry? If a reader is really that interested in Cho and Lowell's brief connection, a simple search of Cho's article would suffice, would it not? - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The section doesn't read "Notable graduates". Alumni can refer to any former student, even if Cho only attended for a day she could be called an alum. The WP:WPSCH/AG#Alumni guideline supports this notion. There are a number of primary sources [1] linking the two that makes the case for inclusion. – Zedla (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
A more precise search came out with three sources on the first page or results. Does using her quotes tying herself with Lowell for a publicity stunt matter? I'll just let this one go. Of all the things I could be doing, I don't feel like getting into a discussion with this subject. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 08:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oldest west of the Mississippi[edit]

The claim of oldest west of the Mississippi (1858) is a claim that jumps off the page. I assume it comes from here: http://www.sfusd.edu/schwww/sch697/about/history/ However Central High School in St. Louis has a claim of 1853. http://oldkunnel.net/schooldaze.html 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I looked to see if perhaps Central High School was no longer operational, which would make Lowell at least the oldest one still operating, but it appears that Central is still operating as a magnet school called Central Visual and Performing Arts High School. However, their Wikipedia page makes no mention of age, and I don't know how reliable "Old Kunnel's" page is -- it looks pretty anecdotal. So I don't think we should modify the Lowell page until we can verify through a more reliable source that Central High really was founded in 1853. — CWesling (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I noticed that the Lowell article belongs to Category:Educational institutions established in 1856. Clicking on that category showed me at least one other high school founded that year that is west of the Mississippi: Sacramento High School. So unless we can establish that Lowell was founded earlier in the year than Sacramento High, I'd say we probably should remove this claim from the Lowell article. — CWesling (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish and Chinese names[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)