Talk:Troy High School (California)

Allegations of Discrimination towards non-honor students

I am a current student at this school and in the controversy section, there should be also allegations of discrimination of non-honors students. Why? Majority of the classes, even those found in other OC high schools, are reserved for the Troy Tech program, even classes such as Business Management basics, and the school only seems to emphasize everything for only the Tech programs or IB or Honors, whereas the "regular" students are basically put aside. There's no racism in this school, but there seems to be alot of social discrimination and unfair policies imposed on the non-honor students. I even spoke with a teacher and he claims that the reservation of the programs are also a controversy in the school boards, as the tech program is severely limiting what non-honors students can and cannot do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.90.224 (talk • contribs) 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Worst school?

There seems to be either vandalism or independent research in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.34.127 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for pointing it out. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NJROTC

I'd like to post a quick query on here: should Troy's NJROTC get its own article or be made as a section of Troy High School (California)? I have seen a couple other JROTC articles created separately from the high school page, so I'm not quite sure as to what to do. Right now, I'm leaning towards making it a section based on WP:N... Any comments? Or is there a different policy for paramilitary programs that I'm unaware of? Thanks. -- Havocrazy 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping it as part of Troy High School (California) would probably save a such-titled article from a speedy deletion. I'm not very sure on how far you can take "notability." Then again, many high school pages like these are just lists of achievements and programs. I'm having trouble locating such individual JROTC articles separate from their high school's pages. Can you name a few? And I doubt there is a different policy for paramilitary programs to this extent. If there is, then all pages would be individual or embedded. Then again, it could be worth a mention due to the visit to Nationals that happened in the 11-something month hiatus. MechStan (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

PSST should not cannibalize the Troy High page with their history of board members. That is purely unethical. It is against Wikipedia policy to post information about an article topic of which you are affiliated. Should PSST want to post such, I suggest they start their own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.33.3 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole issue with Azia Kim probably warrants a mention in the page. [3] [4] [5] Maybe in the notable alumni section? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of press coverage surrounding the matter at that time, but mention of the issue in mainstream media is becoming extremely rare a few months after the initial "hype". I don't think the subject demonstrates long-term notability... +A.0u 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever happened to CB Barrett? Class Of '81? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.203.11 (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Year of Founding

I was amused to see my edit reverted with the blithe and incorrect assertion that "1967 is the correct year" rather than 1964; if you would like to see some photos of my 1989 yearbook that says "25 years and it's worth it," I can supply them. Or perhaps you might like to take a look at http://troyhigh.com/alumni.htm, which notes that the Class of 1967 is having a reunion... how exactly can a school have a CLASS OF 1967 if it didn't even OPEN until 1967? 24.68.138.157 05:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More proof: http://www.fjuhsd.k12.ca.us/pages/bond/4%20-%20Bond%20Meets%20O.C.%20Taxpayers%20Assn%20Criteria.htm 24.68.138.157 06:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Troy Tech Magnet Program Format

Is there anyway to make the prerequisite table not stretch that far (thus adding a horizontal scrollbar to the bottom of the page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloomfilter (talk • contribs)

I have re-formatted the section with the correct syntax. +A.0u 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Troylogo.PNG

Image:Troylogo.PNG 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I've deleted the controversy section; neither the Azia Kim item (see above) nor the asbestos concerns were sourced. References to each can be Googled, but as with the rationale above, it is a dubious proposition to suggest that either item, beyond temporary news coverage, demonstrates long-term notability. JNW (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept that with the notability that you are citing. But the newest article on the Controvery section about how Amy Long got shafted by that fascist VP D'Amelia has multiple sources. It is notable- the ACLU for crying out loud filed a amicus brief on her behalf against the school, and the sources speak for themselves. Roylucier (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed down the Long section because it happened in 2005 when the student was 18 years old, meaning she is no longer a student (I went to Troy and absolutely refuse to believe the Oracle editor-in-chief would still be a student if she was 18 in 2005). Additionally, the sources given do not support all of the claims made. I have also renamed it to remove "-gate" controversy involving the student's name, as sources do not call it by that name. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this case, anyways? Did Ann Long graduate from Troy in 2005 and the whole thing was just forgotten? The paragraph seems incomplete without this information. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a pretty big deal and was even mentioned in the news back in 2005. I can't find anything on how it turned out, hopefully it turned out for the best either way. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"to make an example out of her"

The only source that claims Long would be fired as editor "to make an example out of her" is this one, which states:

Long said D'Amelia called her to his office on Jan. 24 where she was admonished for not seeking the parents' permission. "He told me I either had to resign and make an example of myself for failing to do my job, or I would be removed," Long said.

Nowhere does it say D'Amelia wanted to make an example out of her; this is Long's summary of what D'Amelia allegedly told her—literally a "she said he said" scenario. Additionally, none of the sources given, as well as these: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], explicitly says that D'Amelia initiated the disciplinary action; again, these were Long's claims. Per WP:BLP,which applies to any Wikipedia article, not just biographical ones,

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

— excerpt from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (emphasis mine)

I am therefore removing all claims that D'Amelia initiated the discipline against Long, and that the action against her was intended "to make an example out of her." This is synthesis/OR derived from hearsay and does not belong, especially when dealing with living persons who are not well-known public figures. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also say's however that D'amelia wussed out and refused to answer any questions regarding the issue, directing them instead to the district office. As long as Ms Long's statement of making an example out of her are quoted from Ms Long's point (ie, and according to ms long, "to make an example out of her") AND immediately referenced, then it should be OK. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure that it was D'Amelia who initiated the disciplinary action against Long, but once again the sources given only establish a "she said, he said" scenario. Inclusion of his name over "Troy administration" does not enhance the article context, as the principal and FJUHSD supported the disciplinary action. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You left out this part from WIKIPEDIA'S verification standards, the VERY first thing they say.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Therefore, all three listed sources all cite D'Amelia as the one initiating the action against Ms Long, as well as most of the additional ones. I remember when they showed this on KCAL channel 9 news and the cameraman and producer tried to question D'Amelia and he chickened otu of answering their questions, refering it to the District office. What a surprise.

In regards to your part about BIOGRAPHY OF LIVING PEOPLE, it similarly makes emphasis on NPOV, VERIFICATION, and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The edit in question conforms to all three standards, therefore, effective immediately, the reference to VP D'amelia goes back into the article. User 74.206.0.172 should refrain from making the remark against D'amelia as well. Roylucier (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed briefly at WP:BLP/N and above. BLP explicitly requires things to be well sourced. This is not well sourced, as most sources say it is the administration as a body, not this one person who were at fault. Note that, one source specifically uses the term 'allegedly' which means they are not sufficiently confident that the claim is true. A second source does not mention D'Amelia at all. The third source mentions both D'Amelia and Cerrutti. Importantly none of these sources, nor even Long's claim really establish that D'Amelia was the primary person behind this, even if it is true he/she delivered the ultimatum that doesn't mean he/she was the person leading action perhaps simply the person given the responsibility to give the ultimatum. Ergo this is not acceptably sourced. The only thing we that is perhaps verifiable is that Long made the claim that D'Amelia delivered the ultimatum, but this doesn't seem particularly relevant to the controversy and is not what you're adding to the article. This is a very serious matter so please do not add it back until until a consensus is reached. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which right now, it is 4 editors have all found the sources supports that it was that facist D'amelia (I don't deny I hate the guy adn love the idea of using WIKI to make a strike against the SOB), and only two editors whom see it your way. So far, consensus is that the Sources do support. Again, the WIKI part I cited says it does not matter if it was TRUE, what matters is if it can be soruced and the ACLU, SPLC and the other thing are all excellent sources to be used. I'll wait till at least two others chime in, but once we have 3 votes, the reference to D'amelia should go back in. Assuming you are not D'amelia himself. BTW, too bad I could not get the KCAL channel 9 clip to use.....the Reporter confronted D'amelia with what he did and D'amelia looked like a deer in the headlights, you could see he could not stand up to an adult and only does well lording over students!!! Turnabout is far play, Mr D'amelia!!!! Roylucier (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)