Talk:Greenwich High School

Streaming and Forced Busing

Does Greenwich High School practise streaming ? Can someone answer this question on the site? Also, it is mentioned that there was a Daily Show segment (caps please!) on forced busing - can someone explain in a few words what this was about? [was this a joke of some kind?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.34.20.23 (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Forced Busing" skit was about how only Seniors are allowed to park in the school parking lots, because there isn't enough room for everyone. The privilege can be taken away. But, it isn't much of a problem, they comically over-exaggerated it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.201 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is a bit choppy. Can someone clean it up? Also, the name of the segment is "Greenwich or Bussed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesown (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that Greenwich High School practices streaming. The Daily Show, though a humorous source of news, should not be taken word per word. Otherwise, the world would have been overrun by circumsized bears by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.15.141 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of streaming my experience with the school is yes. It has a variety of courses. AP, Honors, Normal, and some Remedial classes. The entire Greenwich Public School system "streams" one class leading to the other. It is possible, however, to move up to a better stream through hard work and parental argumentation. --Leightnightdinner 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I had to completely fix this page on November 18th. Someone had played a joke on this page and had added false information. Due to the fact that Greenwich is one of the richest towns in the country, someone took advantage of this fact and made up facts that made the high school seem like a rich, pretentious private high school. false facts regarding the number of students admitted to the ivy league were added to the website as well as facts that stated that Greenwich was the best school in the nation, the sports teams were the best in the county, the food court was a sit down restaurant, students can decide whether or not to go to class, there is wi-fi in the school, the high school is the costliest education building in the world and other false facts. These facts aren't funny. The only people who find them funny are the people who wrote them (people most likely from the high school). For someone who doesn't know about the high school, it isn't funny to portray the school as a rich white school. its not using Wikipedia correctly if you put false facts on it. If you want to make funny false facts than go to the "deleted but funny" part of the website. its things that were written that had to be taken down because they were lies, but were actually funny. and by the way, the Greenwich high school debate team is horrible. the link that was posted was clearly false facts made by the members of the team. the team is only marginally successful due to the fact that its members are idiots. and by the way, Kittle I know you made this stuff on the GHS website. You can come find me to discuss this. i sit in the junior section by the vending machines. Ya, you know the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.7.167 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A) TLDR

B) You're using Wikipedia as a forum for your own dislikes against the Debate Team. The article was already deleted because it was simply too vain and praised certain members of it that simply have no mention on Wikipedia.

C) Your changes are merited and approved by me.

D) You really shouldn't put your own initials on the internet, especially if other people there can find out who you are. Initials Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Railcgun (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

what a silly argument

Really, I thought it was funny

i never even knew we had a debate team. but lets stop arguing about it. also, it would be kinda awkward for the you all to talk to eachother at school. 69.119.98.236 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Eliza Kruger

Per Wp:notability, the point of her being a student at the school and being reportedly tied to a certain NFL quarterback IS a valid point that may not be deleted without discussion. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I first reverted the deletion of that information and then thought that I really didn't believe that it should be in an article about the high school. WP:Notability suggests that the incident should be included in an article about the NFL quarterback, or the high school student (if she were noteworthy enough to have an article), but I don't think the information informs the reader about the high school. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Add to that that the cited source says nothing about a "sexual" hook-up and, even if it was, it is legal, apparently. Thus, we're left with content added to the article about a girl that met up with a quarterback. Not what I would call 'noteworthy'. I think it should be removed - primarily for my first reasons (doesn't inform the reader about the high school) but also for the second reasons - not really interesting or noteworthy. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wikipelli. Yes, it is a controvertial addition, but people just can't walk around deleting things they don't like, as many IP editors have been doing here. It is a cited point from a noteworthy third party source. She lacks her own page, but she is certainly a student at this school and is as notable as an alumni - it IS news. Funny how no one is complaining about Michael Skakel. But, I agree, the first source does not cite the school. I've added two more to rectify that. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Markvs88, it's not relevant to Greenwich High School and thus should not be on this article. I will delete it yet again, as others already have had to many times because of your revisions. Michael Skakel was in the news for many years, is part of Greenwich, CT lore, and even had a TV movie made about it. This issue with Eliza Kruger turned into a non-story after two days and does not deserve its own section, or even a mention on the page. You can't seriously be arguing that the Eliza Kruger story is an important tidbit of information to people who want to learn about Greenwich High School. It has nothing to do with the school at all. Wikipelli is completely right. Perhaps you have some personal attachment to the story that causes you to be the only person who keeps putting it back on the page, but it's not justification for littering the page with extraneous information.

If you just keep deleting it, you are guilty of wp:edit warring and the page will likely be locked from any IP editors for a period of time. While I appreciate you're POV, you don't just get to delete things that are negative that you don't like. I do love your accusation, but suggest you have no idea what you're talking about and read wp:gng and wp:NNC to understand why this is notable. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not about liking or not liking the story, it's about the relevance to the article and the general rules of Wikipedia. Wikipelli and the other editors all agree that this is not relevant to the school and provides zero benefit to anyone coming to the page to learn about the school. If you feel that it needs to be on there, please explain how the story is relevant to learning about the school and enough so that it deserves its own section before you put it back.

I don't think the issue is the number or even the quality of citations about the incident. I'll concede that it happened just as reported in the first citation. My only concern is that it is not something that would inform the reader about the high school. It appears as though consensus is for keeping the information out. Wikipelli ^Talk 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipelli - then you have no problem with blanking the whole page then? Because barring the enrollment number and the Rita Crosby, the entire article is uncited EXCEPT for this section. Yes, that's an extreme example, but the point is that the section is about a student at the school and IS in the public interest. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous - "every editor" is perhaps one person using multiple computers, give or take wikipelli. That's a far cry from wp:consensus. I keep posting why it's notable, it keeps being reverted without any of these "editors" saying why except "I don't like it". So try again. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Markvs88, then cite something else that exists on the page and is actually about the school. You have not answered how this adds to the entry about the school, which I suspect is because you know you're wrong. You're adding essentially unrelated tabloid stories to a Wikipedia entry and giving it more space on the page that legitimate sections about the school. It's poor editing. Also, you're the only person who has yet to give justification for your stance. I have explained why it is not relevant and so has Wikipelli. In addition, the previous editors who removed it earlier today and days prior gave justification. You're completely alone on this.

You seem to be confused, anonymous editor. You don't get to censor points you don't like. What I'm doing is KEEPING a (now multiply) cited point in an article. All three papers are valid, third party sources and this is about a student at the school. I've gone above and beyond wp:burden. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable current students

There, now it is cited as about the student, not a "reflection on the school". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

She probably won't be considered a notable person for much longer, but I suppose this is better than before. I will hold off further editing and let others chime in.

If you read wp:notability, you'd know that notablility isn't for a limited time. But I thank you for being reasonable with this compromise. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right after saying that notability is not temporary, it says, "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." Considering this was confined largely to tabloids like the NY Post and sports blogs like deadspin and is not an ongoing story, wouldn't this be considered non-significant coverage?

Neither The New York Post nor the Connecticut Post are tabloids, so no, it would not be considered insignificant coverage. Two citations for any point pretty much puts it beyond question, this one has three. If you like I'll add three more... I see that The Huffington Post [1] has the story. So does Fox News [2] and CBS News [3]. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I really don't care how many sources there are for the information. I've conceded that it's fact (though the nature of the relationship is a little nebulous and obscured by sensationalism in the press). I still maintain that it's not relevant to the article. I don't think it should be included the way it is now, but it's better than it was.Wikipelli ^Talk 13:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wikipelli... please read wp:BASIC. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

According to wp:BASIC The news articles must be "intellectually independent of each other". This is not the case with the story as every article parroted the original NY Post and Deadspin articles. In addition, there is no confirmation that any of this actually happened as each citation only mentions that she suggested they hooked-up, but with no confirmation from Sanchez or people associated with him. Also, the NY Post is widely considered to be a tabloid, or more specifically, a "rag". According to the Wikipedia guidelines you are referencing, this is not notable.

Oh? That's your opinion, which is wp:or. Or are you saying that all the news in the world comes from one agency? Again, regarding the NY Post: That's your opinion, and has no value here. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is non-notable for a number of reasons outside of the journalistic quality of the Post. There was the original Deadspin story, and then the NY Post article which was about the exact same story but with names added. There has not been an article that has expanded upon that, thus making it a "single event or topic", which specifically is mentioned as not significant coverage to warrant notability. Every other article is prefaced with "According to an article in Deadspin" or "According to the NY Post", thus none of the articles are intellectually independent from one another. You have not yet been able to refute the claims by myself and Wikipelli that this is non-notable as defined by the very same guidelines you have been citing. Please re-read the full guidelines you are citing and specifically state why this story is relevant to this particular article.

How are the notable alumni relevant? How are the alleged "Published Teachers" relevant? You can stop at any time. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Because all of the notable alumni are notable for their long-term contributions in their careers (most of them for something they studied or practiced while at GHS), or have been the subject of numerous news articles over many, many years. Those fit under the guidelines of notability. Again, according to Wikipedia guidelines that you yourself cited, one-time stories like this are not notable. As for published teachers, the publications are of academic nature and relate to the school itself as an educational institution. I have answered your questions numerous times and given justification. Do we really need to escalate this issue further or can you gracefully back down and let the consensus prevail?

So... "how to kill somebody with a 6-iron" (Michael Skakel) is in the school's curriculum? Does the Connecticut Department of Education know about this?!? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just being absurd and you know it. The Michael Skakel case was in the news and the Greenwich public conscious for 30 years or something. He was the person I was referring to when I said, "or have been the subject of numerous news articles over many, many years." But you might be right, he isn't relevant to the school so perhaps you or I should remove him. Still, every Notable Alumni entry has its own page, and thus, is notable. This is not the case with Eliza Kruger. I welcome you to remove the section. Otherwise I will report you because it is clear you're unwilling to have a real discussion and your previous actions would most likely be considered Edit Warring, and I won't mess up the format ;) All you have done is detract from the discussion here with empty questions.

I've said everything I need to say at this point.

And you *know* that Eliza Kruger won't be talked about for the next however many years? Again, this boils down to you saying "I don't like it". Actually, that's far from true -- there are many schools where the alumni are posted by reference if they have *some* notablity but not enough/no one's bothered to make them a page. Check out Amity Regional High School or E. O. Smith High School if you like. Report me for obeying the rules? Be my guest, but I've BEEN conversing with you. You just don't want to hear what I'm saying. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a third opinion wp:3o - a dispassionate eye? Wikipelli ^Talk 21:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the best solution.

Feel free. The only thing I'm passionate about is fighting page vandalism. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: just because two sources for something exist doesn't mean it's a good idea to publish it. Were you to create an article on this girl, it would undoubtedly be deleted at AFD due to WP:NOTNEWS. That policy even says, "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That seems like a very good reason not to publish it here either. Were we to attempt to add every person who has ever been mentioned in the news to an article about their high school, we would have some very big lists indeed. Accordingly, I suggest not publishing this material. --B (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Handbook in Spanish

In case a Spanish article is ever started: http://www.greenwichschools.org/uploaded/high_school/about_ghs/MANUAL_PARA_PADRES_DE_ESTUDIANTES.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6OQMOXHEd WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)