Talk:Upper St. Clair High School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overhaul[edit]

I spent a good deal of time on the overhaul and I hope it is well-received. However, I'll be the first to say that there are still many issues with the article. My main goal was to get us back to a solid base article that is easy to expand. To reach this point, I removed many unsourced statements, irrelevant sections, peacocking/POV comments, and other problematic content. The new version is smaller, but everything that is there is, I hope, notable and sourced (or source-able).

As we continue to improve the article, please, please source everything you add, and keep things neutral, accurate, and notable. Thanks! MaxVeers (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IBC[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, not a news article... to that end, and per wikipedia guidelines, articles should neutral and encyclopedic in nature and tone. To wit:

  • 1) Waves are not encyclopedically relevant, ACLU is.
  • 2) Unproven and unadjudicated "claims" in a suit are prima facia non-enclclopedic... anyone can sue for any claim ( interpersonal altercations, death threats, and unadjudicated claims are all Non-encyclopedic). Further, the 'religious' aspect is inflamatory and highly debatable as to true motive for those claims, again not adjudicated and no facts decided.
  • 3) This issue, while having multiple branches, is primarily about financial considerations and actions of the board, the 'national' controversy created by the financial decision, the ACLU litigation tactics, and the settlement decision. While some with a personal axe to grind may wish to debate the underlying motives, this is not the place. Those motivated by personal and religious factors, or white-washing of all IB related content ( and the corrolary of attacking all IB related criticism) should try to understand their biases and then put aside their biases before editing inorder to present an article that is properly encyclopedic in tone and content.

Endogenous -i (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your version of the events is not supported by newspaper accounts and court documents. Ironically, it sounds like you are someone with an "axe to grind", judging by your repeated attempts to rewrite a neutral and accurate description of the controversy.Tvor65 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tvor65, with respect, it is you whom needs to critically read the cited articles, and to then use your brain to think logically about facts, rather then thinking with your emotions. The description as it stands is what factually happened, the unproven motives you wish to allege are unencyclopedic, though likely your confusion stems form your lack of understanding of legal process and fact vs. opinion, etc... Refer to the above to begin a logical discussion on the merrits of each point, or any others you may wish to discuss. Otherwise, you reversion is noting but disrespectful vandalism.Endogenous -i (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the cited material. Again, it does not support your version of the events.Tvor65 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest, Endogenous -i, that you give a point-by-point explanation of what you think should be changed, rather than substituting a substantially different section as a block? Remember that we need to include details which are supported by verifiable sources. You may think that the facts of the matter are different to those recorded, but wikipedia is a reflection of what is reported and is not the place to argue over the facts, sorry. Wikipedia:No original research has more details on this aspect of wikipedia. Ewen (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eewn, that is what I have tried to do above, and before, yet there has been no logical discussion on the merits by anyone but myself. Rather, what I do see is continual revision to a clearly biased, non-factual, and unencyclopedic paragraph without any logical discussion.
Now, many of the relevant details, and citations, have been deleted. While an argument can always be made to streamline unnecessary details deletion of necessary contextual information is generally not supported. In this case the situation is a notable academic controversy (pitting the fiscal decisions of a representative democracy against individual special interest) and warrants enough detail to explain the actions, responses, ramifications, and results rather then a less comprehensive abbreviation. Endogenous -i (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it better to stick to the smaller, original text and work from there.

I struggle to see how the details of this case are notable enough for inclusion, but let's see. I don't feel Endogenous -i's three-point note above has enough detail - only the Waves/ACLU issue is specifically mentioned and the rest is general opinion. Let's hear some specifics, please.

Ewen (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It could be streamlined, dependant on what details are notable and warrant inclusion. Though first, before deleting content, the question should be addressed about why it was controversial. Was it merely the elimination of the program for fiscal reasons that was controversial (not really, though certain special interests thought so), or was it because of the aclu involved bully-litigation method in which special interests undermined the community’s fiscal decision (i think that necessarily important, as it is what raised the issue to national significance). I see the big underlying issue to be one of representative-democracy vs individual special interests... i.e. in this case the reason for cutting the program was primarily fiscal, but the program was re-instated due to the aclu bully-litigation tactics and litigation expenses rather then any fiscal re-assessment of the program (as evidenced by the settlement details where both the plaintiff parents and the state government both kicked in money to cover some of the costs, which had been specifically eliminated by the peoples duly elected representatives). So, what exactly should be deleted, and why is it unnecessary?
+ the policy, ethics and fiscal statements are relevant to understand the decision and context
+ the suit, the aclu, and the plaintiffs whom brought the suit are necessary to understand the controversy (elected representatives vs individual special interests)
+ the settlement details, including the board decision to cave-in due to monetary concerns ( again back to primary reason for decision) is necessary to understand the result
- the waves group is unnecessary, as it is not actually part of the controversy as detailed above… they are ancillary at best.
Endogenous -i (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your syntax makes my head hurt.
Are terms like 'bully-litigation' and 'cave-in' good choices in a neutral discussion?
Are the points you want to add 'notable'?
Are the points you want to add 'original research'?
Ewen (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why are you personally attacking me, rather then having a logical discussion on the merits of the issue? You are deleting relevant sourced content, read the sources! Why are you being so obstreperous by repetitively reverting and refusing to have a real discussion? Read the logic above, and respond logically, rather then emotionally. Please, lets have a logical discussion. Endogenous -i (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack to point out your poor spelling, confusing syntax and provocative choice of wording.
You make it sound like the ACLU were to blame for this whole episode, when the initial act was by the school board. Although the costs were given as the reason for dropping the course, it is possible that there were ideological reasons too. And costs were cited as the reason for not fighting the ACLU suit when the later report made it clear that there were strong reasons for re-adopting the IB program - that sounds a lot like the board knew they'd lose the case and used 'cost' as a fig-leaf to excuse their capitulation.
But why should a wikipedia article go into any of this detail? Who cares? Is it notable? Is it not original research to highlight this or that nuanced report of the issue? The article would be better with a simple note that this argument happened, wouldn't it?
I've been working through the expanded text and removing material on a point-by-point basis. I'm not done yet but it's time to pause for discussion before there are too many edits to make sense.
Ewen (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability seems to be an issue, as Ewen mentions. In my view, the IBC section is too long in relation to the rest of the article and there's no need to have the level of detail that Endogous -i has been adding. The uncited bits should be deleted until verified with reliable sources.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to all of this. However, wikipedia is too difficult to use. If you have to read extensive comments about how to properly edit Wikipedia you ruin its purpose. Not everyone has the time. At the beginning of THIS page someone states Wiki's purpose is NOT to be an aggregate source of news. I deleted the assault charges because they fail to fit the category of what Upper St. Clair is about. Including news stories about USC is absurd. Why is this any more relevant than including USC's incoming and outgoing teachers? Why not include the minutes of PTA meetings every week? Again, I am deleting this content for a very valid reason. Its not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.98.90 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think along those lines it's fine also to remove the entire International Baccalaureate Controversy section that was newsworthy five years ago, but now no longer relevant. Either one newsworthy story is removed or both. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to add the controversy[edit]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10211/1076338-455.stm Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Upper St. Clair High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Upper St. Clair High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upper_St._Clair_High_School&oldid=1208624007"