Talk:St. Rita of Cascia High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Schools (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Illinois (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

uncited notable alumni[edit]

The above two alumni were removed from the article. A search for sources turned up nothing. If sources can be found, they should be re-added to the article in the appropriate place. As of this moment, the article is under protection because of BLP violations, so I think there needs to be a strict eye kept on who is added to the list. I have added a warning to future editors regarding this in the article itself. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave this article a longer than normal protection period as it has long suffered from BLP related vandalism. This is usually, but not always, reverted quickly however even having some of the content added in the article history could be a problem, so I have deleted revisions with the inappropriate content. With the exception of (talk · contribs), who no longer seems to edit the page, there have been few productive edits from IPs, so I see any collateral damage to be minimal. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

why is this page protected?[edit]

Why can I not edit this page. Some of these recent changes are incorrect yet it seems a privileged few have reserved the right to alter this page. Unfortunately, their changes are for the worse.

Look above your edit to see the reasons for the protection. If there is something that you see in error, please discuss it here ... I for one am more than willing to make corrections, provided there is sourcing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It was protected as it was a repeat target for vandalism and libel against living persons, much of it was so severe it has been deleted from the history. Since it has been exactly a month and their is demand for it I will give a go at unprotection, but I will be keeping an eye on this page to see what happens. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


There is (are) an anonymous editor(s) who continually add a list of rivals for this school without providing a reference to suppor their claim. If you can find references to support this (third party, reliable sources, then re-add the edit and provide the ref & cite. In the absence of a reference on a topic like this, it is purely speculative and opinion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I have tried to give some policy to (talk · contribs) which are clearly not on his side here e.g. WP:V states that Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. If this IP does any more reverts I am going to WP:AN/3RR. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, no one is saying the edit doesn't, per se, belong. However, this is something that, barring a reliable source to confirm the assertion, it is something that becomes controversial. For example, these schools may be rivals ... or they may only be rivals in one sport ... in the absence of a source, it is simply opinion, and it does not belong. I know that sources for this can be notoriously difficult to find, and I wish any editors luck in that search. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, even if the rivalries do exist they should not be mentioned in the article unless there is at least one reliable source that mentions them. Which schools are being referred to is also unclear, the full names and links to the school's articles should be put somewhere in the article if rivalries are to be included. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just have to cite EVERY FUCKING SENTENCE on wikipedia then? Someone with knowledge put the information on there, not me. I confirmed that it was correct. Instead of deciding whether or not the information was correct (OR GOD FORBID LOOKING UP THE CITES YOURSELF), nahh...just revert it. Oh, it's been confirmed correct? AH....just revert it again. You effin douchebag.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I removed Providence as a rival because the source in no way even remotely came close to noting Providence and St. Rita as rivals ... the article was about Mt. Carmel and St. Rita, and mentioned Providence as having beaten Mt. Carmel the weak earlier, and being the next opponent for St. Rita. I congratulate this unknown editor for sourcing the two rivals noted, however this lowly effin' douchebag is challenging said reference. If another reference can be found, Providence should be readded. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ideally almost everything on Wikipedia should be cited, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We verify things are correct by providing sourcing, not word of mouth, which is just a recipe for disaster in the world we live in. The burden was on you (the person adding the material) to provide sources, see WP:BURDEN, the reverts until that was done were perfectly justified. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I DIDN"T ADD THE MATERIAL!!! Also, I would like Lonely Beacon warned for his personal attack. Just like you warned me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

So (talk · contribs) is more than one person? If you edit similar articles with the same IP you are going to get treated as one person, any blocks will also effect all users of that IP address. If you want to avoid such problems, please register an account. Lonely Beacon did not make any personal attacks that I'm aware of. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's great that you get to be the mediator here, because you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I did not add the original rivalries information. I did confirm it, however. Which you then reverted. Real nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question, where are the personal attacks you allege? All I see above more of them coming from this same IP address. I have repeatedly explained here and elsewhere individuals "confirming it" is not good enough for information to be kept on an article, and once more, please read WP:V. It is not a matter of a "reading comprehension problem", it is matter that it is not possible to tell multiple individuals from one IP address apart. I am not just being mediator here, I am also acting as an administrator, if warnings continue to be ignored I will be thinking about resorting to other measures. Camaron · Christopher · talk 23:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
so, let me recap the action so far:
1. Editor(s) add rivalry information that was unreferenced/uncited. I deleted it.
2. The material is readded with an anon editor confirming the material, without providing reference or citation.
3. The material is again deleted by me.
4. The anon editor is upset with this, and is told about the problems with this, despite an explanation on this talkpage explaining how this information needs to be referenced, especially given that the article was recently protected against vandalism, and that WP:V permits editors to remove unreferenced material.
5. A (different ?) anon editor restores the information with references that only account for 2 of the 3 listings, and proceeds to call other editors "douchebags".
6. I am glad that there are sources found for this information, and find that there are in fact several other reliable sources that confirm the existence of other rivals. I even find a source that confirms the third rival the anon added.
7. The anon who is calling others douchebags decides to remove two referenced rivals claiming "they're not rivals". I have since restored these edits. If there is a challenge to the reliability of the sources, or their factual accuracy, then let's discuss that here.
It seems to me that this most recent anon editor is not only involved with not understanding wikipedia policies, despite having them very politely pointed out to them, not only engages in personal attacks, but is now claiming ownership of this article by deciding which reliable sources are personally acceptable, and which are not.
Furthermore, if I have somehow personally attacked any editor, then I demand that this be stated so that I can be properly warned, and offer an apology. As far as I can tell, all I did was restate some words used by the anon, and used them to refer to myself, clearly not to any other editor. I await this information coming to the light so that I may take corrective action, if any is needed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No I don't think you have engaged in personal attacks LonelyBeacon, you have in fact maintained a very high level of civility in the face of personal attacks from others. I have lost count the amount of times I have cited policy and guidelines to (talk · contribs), these along with warnings continue to be ignored. While this IP address has made a few productive edits, the conduct above and edit warring appears to be beginning to outweigh that. I am taking no action for now, but it is last chance saloon for this IP, I urge whoever is behind this IP address to make the most of it and read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and be willing to discuss things with civility. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be further concern regarding the rivalries section. I have restored referenced material that was unilaterally deleted. I repeat the request: if any editor has a problem with the reliability of these edits, they should bring this up here for discussion.
Having said this, this bring up a general concern that I have regarding the inclusion of discussion about rivalries. I am continuing to search old newspapers regarding rivalries between St. Rita and other schools not listed yet. I suspect that I may find sources listing other rivalries, though there is little evidence that these rivalries still exist; at least not in the common sense of the word. The problems are:
1. Rivalries come and go. Teams can be rivals for a period of time (2 years, ten years), and then never really again.
2. A rivalry can be one sided ... that is one team can name another team as their rival, but the other team considers it inconsequential. A team might defeat another for five consecutive years in the playoffs ... to the losing team, they are rivals; the other thinks nothing of it. But, one local newspaper reporter using the term in an article creates a reliable source that confirms a rivalry that is hardly agreed upon.
3. Rivalries can exist in one sport and not others. For example, St. Rita is apparently a rival with Mt. Carmel in football and wrestling, but a basketball rival with Marist.
4. The term "rival" can be used in different ways. In journalism, a "rival" could be two teams that recently played a close game/match. That is not the conventional use of the term as it applies here, but unfortunately, one newspaper reporter using that term provides a reliable source that confirms a rivalry that very few people agree with.
I'm more than willing to hear reasoned thoughts on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it appears unregistered users are going to insist on removing sourced material in clear contradiction of the WP:V policy that Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth, with no effort to discuss it on the talk page. This page has a history of disruption by unregisterd users, and since I tried unprotection I am finding it difficult to see a net benefit to this article. I will leave it for now, but while on the face of this it this is a content dispute, when users to refuse to co-operate it becomes disruption. I have done a Whois check on (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) and geographically there is no connection, though the university IP is from South Carolina and this new IP is from Virginia, which are coincidentally close in global terms. Isn't it is a bit of coincidence also that at around the time universities break-up for Christmas, another U.S. IP suddenly appears and shares exactly the same views as a previously active university IP, the same behaviour of commenting through edit summaries (most unregistered users leave the edit summary blank), and the same language style (e.g. calling the school "SA", repeatedly using the word "correct")? Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Wow. This is some astonishing conspiracy theory you have here. I was simply trying to make a productive, helpful change to this article. Truly amazing. Moreover, your comment above is one of the worst examples of editing Wikipedia. You don't even bother to get the name or initials of the school right, yet you are expert enough to comment on who is/isn't a rival of the school. It appears you may be claiming ownership of this article. I am not connected with this previous IP you are mentioning, but I do have knowledge on the school and its situation. I was trying to make this article better and this is the thanks I get? Very lame.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the verifibaility policy, I think we need to make a decision here. Either all of the verifiable rivalries stay, or they all go. I am frankly at ease with either outcome at this point. It is extremely clear that we have a case of article ownership taking place, with some anonymous IPs refusing to even listen to policy, and continually claiming that they are "improving" the article. Given the floating nature of the IPs involved, ti is possible we are dealing with socks, but I suspect that there may also be meatpuppetry going on. In any event, I think that it may be time for an uninvolved admin to take a look at this and make some decisions regarding page protection ... my preference would be to protect the article, but keep the talk page open to encourage editors, even the anon ones, to engage in discussion over this issue. While none has really engaged in discussion except for putting down the work of other editors/defending their right to improve against policy, they may come around.
BTW, User talk:, if you wish to improve the article, as you and so many other IPs here have claimed, please make yourself familiar with the verifiability policy, and the use of reliable sources. It is a core policy of this website that too many of the anonymous IPs at this article are either ignorant about, or have simply chosen to ignore.
I hope you will read this and come to an understanding as to how this website operates, and why the continual adding of unreferenced information was stopped, and why the deletion of referenced information will also be stopped. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is now under protection, though I think this page is still open. Can any editor explain why the sourcing for the three schools getting deleted is "wrong", while the referencing for the other schools is "right"? LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes the article is still open for autoconfirmed user editing. In response to, it is unfortunate if there is no connection, however sock puppetry is common on Wikipedia and people who do it do not usually note it on their talk pages or anything like that, so admins have something called the duck test, and in this case there was reasonable grounds to be suspicious of either sock puppetry or meat puppetry going on here. As for the suggestion I am claiming ownership of the article, well I will just say I am not the one edit warring here, or removing content outside Wikipedia policy, neither of which really improve the article. The best way to avoid such accusations at the end of the day is to register an account so you have a fixed identity and don't have to reveal IP addresses.
All the IPs who have edited this article recently have similarly not understood or ignored that Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. Content in articles is determined by what reliable sources say and is verified by then, not what editors think is the "truth" (or "correct"). Editors own opinions, known as original research, regardless of if they are an expert on the topic or not, does not override sourced content. Excluding sourced content from an article based on personal opinion is also not acceptable, and is considered a violation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The article's protection has expired and their has been no further word from the individial(s) behind the IP(s). Since there has been no clear explanation justifying removal of the material, perhaps it should be re-added and then we can see what happens from there. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, but would like to propose a potential solution. For now, let's keep things as they are, and let me spend some time over the next month doing some occasional research. Let's take this out of the infobox, because, frankly, it makes the infobox look bad. Let's move it down to the athletics section. Specifically, I want to do some article searches regarding how many times these schools show up as being "rivals". That doesn't remove the fact that each of these is sourced, and using the IP arguments, they all belong, but perhaps there can be an accommodation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I see the user is back at it again, once again providing no real reason to remove the material and refusing to discuss it on the talk page despite multiple requests to. When it gets to this stage it gets beyond a content dispute, and semi-protection can be justified. I have left the IP address unblocked so the user can still edit this page if (s)he wishes to edit productively. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


I am giving this article a provisional bump to "C" status, based on the referencing and that it has most of the sections in place to constitute a more-or-less complete article. I think the article needs more expansion, more referencing, and some more stability before it can get bumped up to a "B" status. A more experienced editor should confirm this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it was certainly deserved better than Start. I would say it is very close to B-class, but yes I agree more stability and expansion would be good before B-class is given. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)