Jump to content

Talk:Brooklyn Technical High School

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


Suggestion re. content dispute Becos

[edit]

As copied from talk page:

You can file a request for Third Opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion and you can use this page to discuss any and all changes together with a volunteer who wishes to intervene.

And changes does not mean pasting in whole documents or making long essays. I suggest a paragraph by paragraph approach with comments limited to a few sentences without personal attacks and other irrelevant talk. Just stick to the facts and say what you think should be changed or added paragraph by paragraph and work for a consensus that way. At least that's my opinion of the matter.

  • Paragraph ...
    • Please add / change ...
      • Opinion person #1
      • Opinion person #2
      • Consensus

After a paragraph is accepted it can be moved to the document. And every entry has to be signed and dated using ~~~~. Dr Debug (Talk) 01:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion and I will do so as soon as I can. I have a conference in DC over the weekend but I will work on the suggestion. Thank you also for letting me know how to sign on the website I didn't realize what you guys were doing. I'll use it now as a test. Signing off Becos 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally we are starting to make some progress. I think that we should do small steps and see how far we can come with small suggestions per paragraph.
In case there is a difference of opinion there needs to be a mediator. I am willing to do that, but if you don't think that I am reliable then we need to find somebody else. We can use the Third Opinion or alternatively the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates to find somebody who is willing to it.
As far as Wikipedia goes, it is a huge bureaucracy already with a Request for Comments system and a Mediation system which can be tried if this fails, but that's a lot more formal already and too early.
In the meantime enjoy DC and think about it and let's take it slow. Dr Debug (Talk) 04:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits

[edit]

To User:24.92.241.215 — some nice, careful work there! — Tenebrae 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus request and a good idea

[edit]

This is an excerpted CC of Becos' good suggestion to me on my Talk page, and my response on his page, in which I ask for a consensus. Now this is Wiki is all about!

I was just wondering if you wanted to start dicussing more about the Tech page. I feel it is wrong to suggest what has happened with McCaskill as Tech in the 21st Century. I want to make that section called McCaskill as Principal and then the next secion be about the Mack library, the computerization of Tech, and Randy Asher becoming principal under the section title of Tech in the 21st Century. Nothing will be deleted, just that the information will be rearranged to not only show what destructive behavior McCaskill had, but at the same time what the school has to offer and that it is moving on. Tell me what you think. I also want to add sections on academics and sports, considering the fact Tech was a powerhouse under Cirillo (aka Mr. Tech) in football during the 60s and 70s. Becos 21:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad — if it's the consensus of others here — to move that principal's unique era to its own section and out of the chronological section in which it now resides. I'll post your suggestion and my response on the Tech Discussion page. Also, and I know this is because you're new to Wikipedia, please remember to sign your posts (using a dash and four tildes), so as to properly ID oneself and save others from having to look up the poster on the History page.
And very seriously: Thanks. I'm looking forward to moving forward. — Tenebrae 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, I feel that the refernce section is becoming too lengthy, shouldn't all of those articles correspond to the facts they detail in the article under the footnote section. I think they should be footnote rather than references. Shouldn't references be for further reading, while footnotes denote original sources for things stated in the article.Becos 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we all work together on the article first, and worry about the length of the References later? I actually have never heard of trimming References on Wikipedia — often the problem is just the opposite. I afraid I don't see any reason not to have a substantial list that confirms what the article says so that there's no ambiguity, especially since controversy is concerned. And there are some articles on Wikipedia with lengthier Reference sections, so overall I'm not sure why this is problematic. It's good you bring this up for consensus, though. — Tenebrae 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becos suggestion

[edit]

I think I know what I was trying to aim for now. I think we should bunch the articles under footnote section and then have sites such as Brooklyn Tech, Alumni Association, Bthsnews.org, under a section called External Links. Becos 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think the consensus opinion has been to start small. Eviscerating the article is not starting small. (I say "eviserating" only because it's a fun word. Perhaps "taking the article apart" would be more strictly accurate phrase.) Please go to the Wikipedia Policy Page at Wikipedia:Google test. I'm afraid I would have reasonable doubt that The Brooklyn Tech Alumni Assn., BTHSNews.com, etc., would get the hundred or more hits that Wikipedia generally considers indicative of a topic's encyclopedic value.
In other words, does a site have to have more than 100 hits in order to be considered an external link?Becos 06:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's really, really important to go to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and read up. — Tenebrae 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Below copies from Tenebrae discussion page; note left on Becos page to continue discussion here.
The truth of the matter is that I extremely envy the neatness of the Stuyvesant and Bronx Science articles. If there was some way to make the reference and footnote section cleaner like separate between news articles and regular websites. I just feel the lengthy titles to the references makes the section look cluttered.Becos 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it looks cluttered (I did go just in, in consideration of your point, to delete a redundant link and group like links together) and I think given the controversial section in particular that all these references are needed.
Again, it's important not to personalize these things. A rivalry with Stuyvesant and Bronx Science is great while one is a Brooklyn Tech student, but, y'know, that was then and this is now. I don't think I'm saying anything untoward by acknowledging that you're a justifiably proud alumnus. I do wonder how you're privy to discussions about what to do with the Foundry, but regardless: It's important to be as objective as possible and not worry about what Stuyvesant and Bronx Science Wiki pages are doing.
I thought we'd all agreed on doing basic changes and additions, and seeking consensus, rather than doing wholesale changes to highly confirmed work that many people have devoted much time to. — Tenebrae 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow alumni are always discussing ways in which we can use the older facilities that are obviously out of date but should still be put to use.
That would then fall under the heading of original research, which is one of the big no-no's of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research.
I know it seems as if there are a plethora of policies. They've evolved — still are evolving — from real-world trial-and-error over the span of Wikipedia's life. Have you had a chance to look through Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and maybe some of the related pages? What with Wikipedia being a modern-day cultural phenomenon unfolding before our very eyes, it's like going behind the scenes. Really interesting reading! — Tenebrae 12:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation request

[edit]

Third-largest or second-largest auditorium? Until we can get a citation, perhaps in a footnote, I think it might be practical to say simply "one of the largest". That should hold us (and hold off on the reversions) till someone can get this verifiably confirmed. — Tenebrae 12:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second largest in NYC, with Radio City Music Hall being the largest. See the bottom of the first page for the relevant line: "Did you Know..." (For the original PDF file, go here - www.nycenet.edu/hs_directory/2004-05/brooklyn/BROOKLYN%20TECHNICAL%20HIGH%20SCHOOL.pdf)- JPM | 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I'll add it as a footnote. — Tenebrae 14:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for comments

[edit]

Acting on User:Becos' suggestion, I've moved the section on the controversial principal to its own section. I'm not sure "controversy" is the right word for the subhead, but "scandal" seems too strong. Any suggestions?

Also, note that "Tech in the 21st century" could probably use a little more text; on the other hand, the century's still young. — Tenebrae 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I still wonder why a controversy of three or four years duration is given so much verbage in the article. On the timeline of Tech, the controversy is little more than a minor bump. I read about the controversy, and the first thing that comes to mind is "who cares". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.156.62 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • McCaskill's tenure was quite a bit longer than just "three or four years" and the controversy began almost from the start of his administration. It was played out in local papers and at least one national paper: The New York Times. His administration presided over what many consider a decline in the quality of education at Tech, only recently revived, and threatened to damage its reputation long into the future, particularly in comparision to the other two "traditional" specialized high schools in NYC. For these reasons, and more, the controversy deserves more than just a passing mention, and demonstrates that - despite the previous anonymous author's opinion - many, many, people "cared". Shoreranger 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Shoreranger. Additionally, apparent friends of McCaskill or possibly McCaskill himself appear to have attempted to dilute this more than decade-long controversy that was widely reported over the course of years in The New York Times and elsewhere. --Tenebrae 02:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that McCatskill's tenure was only three or four years in duration, that is your misquote of what I had stated. Why did you try to spin what I wrote into something I did not? I specifically asked why a controversy of that length was given so much verbage. Furthermore, you state that the controversy started at the beginning of his tenure, yet the earliest citation is significantly after the beginning of his tenure. In other words, according to the citations in the article itself the controversy was only three or four years in duration. While it is easy to attribute criticisms to "apparent friends of McCaskill", to what do you attribute poor reporting and substantiation of what is written in the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.156.62 (talk • contribs)
The section in question is footnoted with years of reporting in such authoritative and credible sources as The New York Times and elsewhere. It was a major scandal reported on in depth and detail by the mainstream press, and not giving it the responsible coverage it has here would be akin to skimming over the Boss Tweed scandal in a history of New York City. Also, please sign your posts. Registering and having a history of effective and responsible edits is always helpful in gaining editorial credibility for controversial issues. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...with years of reporting...." That is a nice side-stepping of my comment. Why are you so adverse to staying with the facts, instead choosing to mis-quote my comments to suit your purposes, or trying to dismiss what I write by stating that I am an "apparent friend" of MacCaskill (or even more humourously, Mr. MacCaskill himself)? (btw, I am neither, I never met the guy.) One gains credibility by having it, not by registering and signing in. One gains credibility by answering questions, not side-stepping them. That is something you should think about as you continue to [mis]edit this article, and try to justify your bias by comparing this short controversy to a major NYC governance scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.156.62 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed section addition

[edit]

While I've moved information on the actual building and facilities out of "History" and into its own section, I'm wondering if it might not be best to have the first section after the Introduction be "Academics," as I believe one of the other specialized high schools does?

If anyone can write an objective three or four paragraphs on Tech's unique academics, maybe taking some existing material from History to seed it, that might be a good post-Intro section, followed by Building and Facilities, History, Notable Alumni, etc. Thoughts? — Tenebrae 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minicomputer paragraph

[edit]

Tenebrae has commented out this paragraph believing it pointless. I believe it does have historical value and emphasizes the technical orientation of the school. Younger users may not know how rare computers were in the 1970s, when PCs didn't exist. High schools with minicomputers (which could fill a small room) were nonexistent. The only educational institutions with computers at the time were major and technical colleges and universities. As it was, the obsolete and unused machinery, which cost anywhere from several hundred thousand to over a million dollars new, did take up over 100 square feet in one of the labs for years before it was finally discarded. 24.92.241.215 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the paragraph under discussion.
In the mid-1970s, an obsolete minicomputer was donated to Tech. A record of the manufacturer and model is unknown, but it is believed to have been an IBM 1620. The computer and its peripherals were never reassembled into a operational system, due in part to the complexity of such early computers.
I believe it is saying that at an undetermined date, an obsolete computer, brand and model unknown, was given to the school, and was never assembled or used.
What the BLEEP!  :- ) is the encyclopedic value of that? Also, there's no citation for where this very vague information even came from. -- Tenebrae 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article, like most of Wikipedia, is uncited, including the assertion that Dr. Colston had an apartment in the tower. No faculty or staff member in recent decades has been able to explain what the tower was ever used for, yet this among other statements is unchallenged. Any of several hundred students or several teachers who had to work around the large pieces of the system scattered in the lab space under plastic for several years could attest to its presence in the school at the time. I could have easily made it seem more interesting and impressive and less vague by authoritatively stating its make and model and omitting that it was never reassembled, leaving people to assume the school had a working IBM 1620 in the 1970s, but that would have been a series of lies. As it was presented, it functioned as a stub to allow further clarification should anyone with more detailed information decide to come forth. Deleted or commented out, it would not stimulate memories or discussion. 24.92.241.215 03:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Reference section at the end of the article that lists where information has come from. If you believe a particulat thing, such as the tower-apartment, is inaccurate and not supported by the Reference sources, then you put the "citation request" template next to the item. Just type: {{fact}}.
You say that if you'd wanted to, you could have been misleading, and we should be grateful that you weren't. I'm not sure that's the best stance to take when contributing to an encyclopedia. I'm also not sure how further clarification would have helped: By your own statement, it was just a pile of junk under plastic. It was never assembled, you say. And eventually, you say, thrown out.
In any event, no amount of witnesses change one of the very central tenets of Wikipedia: no original research. Even if this information were of encyclopedic value, it would have to have come from a cited, verifiable source. If somethign was significant, someone, somewhere, would have written about it.
Please read up on Wikipedia policy; that's really a very important thing to do -- a basic responsibility, really -- for anyone joining this wonderful project. -- Tenebrae 04:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The computer was hardly junk. It could probably have been made functional had anyone in the school had the proper expertise, which would have made it almost certainly unique among high schools at the time. It wouldn't have been state of the art, but other schools didn't even have minicomputers of any type. I don't think you'd really want me to challenge all the uncited information. Virtually every sentence of this article (aside from the heavily reported McCaskill story) is uncited. I'd be littering such requests all through the article since none of the reference sources mention such claims as the mass suspension, the dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria, the dress code problem, the drowning in the pool, even the physical features of the building. I don't doubt some or all of them are true, but citations just aren't readily available, instead relying on student, staff and alumni knowledge, so you may be reduced to emptying out everything in the article before the 1990s in the interests of verifiability. Even if such things had been written up in old student newspapers, it would be difficult for anyone to verify such citations since the school and its library are off-limits to all non-student visitors, including alumni, and the staff would be highly unlikely to have the time or inclination to do research for outsiders. But never mind. If you're so dead-set against this, I'll let it lie. 24.92.241.215 10:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You note, "I don't doubt some or all of [the things you listed above] are true..."
If you have any doubt, there's a responsibility to speak up, if you care about the subject. An encyclopedia doesn't have room for rumors, or hazy memories, etc. If there are things in here you doubt are true, then, seriously, it's not littering if you put citation requests where needed in the article. I am not kidding or being flippant — you would be doing a significant and important service to this article. Wikipedia has been in the news over false supposed facts finding their way into it. Please consider this.
In the meantime, I'll try and find citations; if contributors only think someone drowned in the pool, but nobody really did, that's a besmirching of the school's reputation. --Tenebrae 05:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About that microcomputer -

Interesting discussion! I hope I'm not too late to contribute.

I can confirm (from personal memory): 1) That the computer DID go into operation, probably in the Fall of '73. 2) That Melvin Klein, then the Chairman of the Math Department, taught a course in Fortran 2 programming. (One assignment was to write a program to determine whether an arbitrary input integer as a palindrome).

I can certainly understand that incredulity of the current generation, but the availability of a computer at Tech in those days was, indeed, a big event and Tech might have been almost unique among public high schools to have access to such equipment. I'll leave it up to you to determine whether this is wiki-worthy.

--Philopedia 01:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) class of '75[reply]

SING! history

[edit]

We've just started an article on SING!. Brooklyn Tech is listed as a school that does or has done SING! shows, but there's no other information. If anybody can update the article to reflect what years Brooklyn Tech had SING productions, and if they're still happening, it would be appreciated. thanks. Simon12 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbering

[edit]

The Washington Post footnote in the intro paragraph corresponds with Footnote 6, and in fact, under "Edit This Page", a 6 is typed in the appropriate place. However, the footnote number in that intro graf appears on my screen, at least, as "2". Anyone else getting this, and if so, anyone know how to fix? -- Tenebrae 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It was like that when I got here" :-) Seriously, the problem stems from using {{note|number}} and manually constructing the footnote section. If you ask me, the right thing to do is to switch to the <ref>{{cite ...}}</ref> style of references and to merge the Footnotes section into the References section. For an example of how it works, you can look at the wikitext of Stuyvesant High School. I'd be happy to do the job if you like. RossPatterson 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, God, yes! I'm still doing it the old  "{ { fn|* } }"  way since the new way is so complicated. I know, I know, I'll learn it...! --Tenebrae 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RossPatterson 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yer a pal! -- Tenebrae 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handball disambiguation

[edit]

"Gymnasiums on the first and eighth floors, with a mezzanine running track above the larger first floor gym. The eighth floor gym had a bowling alley lane and an adjacent wire-mesh enclosed rooftop sometimes used for handball and for tennis practice." Which type of handball? I'm trying to remove links to the disambiguation page. I'm guessing this will be American_handball LeeG 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Team Handball is played in the 1st and 8th floor gyms during certain months of the year. - JPM | 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

[edit]

"It is also the second largest school in New York state.[citation needed]"

Is this referring to square footage? Student population? Total number of students and faculty? Something else?

Also, that was the last sentence of a paragraph about the radio antenna, so it probably belongs elsewhere. -- Tenebrae 01:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Alley

[edit]

I'm a senior from Tech ,and I never saw a bowling alley on the 8th floor gym when I had classes there. The foundry is located on the 7th floor next to the cafeteria. It may be closed but it is still used as a storage room for mechanical equipment. From what I see, they look like ancient sewing machines.

Website changed

[edit]

I think that the link to the site should be changed to http://bths.enschool.org/ because it is redirected there anyway from bths.edu

Aglyad 13:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a new site created this year (2007), http://www.bthsnews.org/ ,which caters directly to students, and is staffed by students as well. I'm a 2007 senior. UrbanDisciple 01:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height of Brooklyn Tech

[edit]

456+145 = 601ft... not 597, is there a reference to the real height? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hengsheng120 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RE: It's 10 floors high. Make sure they like you enough not to give you a 07:30 class on the top floor. - The Philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.39.107 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tech baseball team

[edit]

This is regarding the recent edits.

For one there is no original research allowed so just because someone states that something occurred doesn't make it so. The reference for that statement was not an adequate source. Besides, I'm sure that Tech has many more coaches who were important to their teams and yet are not mentioned here. Keep in mind this is an article about a very old and very accomplished school so it takes much more than that to be notable here. As mentioned earlier by another editor if you still have a problem then register and debate this issue on this talk page. JRWalko 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis C. Brown

[edit]

Francis C. Brown, 1945 - Deputy Chief, FDNY, 40 years of service. He is my father and lives on the Upper East Side to this day. If you want, you can call him and he will verify that he went to Bkyn Tech and retired as a FDNY Deputy Chief! He is in the telephone book: E 92end and 3 Ave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.182.102 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid what you're claiming falls under the Wikipedia guidline of no original research. Everything in the encyclopedia has to be able to be independently verified by an authoritative outside source. If an individual is encyclopedically notable, then it should be easily to find supporting biographical facts on the Internet. If you could supply such references/footnotes, that would be great. -- Tenebrae 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you... you can call him, he is in the phone book. Don't be a jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.182.102 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 April 2007

It seems you didn't understand Tenebrae. What someone says about themselves isn't interesting on Wikipedia, as per the no original research policy. Wikipedia specifically disallows information that isn't already published somewhere else. Tenebrae is correct that if someone is notable, it should be possible to find out things about them from published sources, including reputable Internet web sites, newspapers, etc. If not, well, then how is someone "notable" if they haven't been of note? RossPatterson 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try nyfd.com/brooklyn_engines/engine_240/engine_240.pdf He is listed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.129.74.41 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 April 2007

Well, that's something. But all it says is that Mr. Brown was one of several hundred firefighters who worked for a few years at a station in Brooklyn. Nobody has claimed that Mr. Brown did something unusual or notable, or that Engine 240 did so while he was there. I strongly suggest that the proponents of this fellow go read the Wikipedia guideline on notability. The qualifications are a bit less stringent for listing as a "notable alumnus" than for a biographical article, but not dramatically so. If Mr. Brown is worthy, finding citations online or offline that say so shouldn't be difficult. RossPatterson 22:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break... he worked from 1949 - 1989; years before the Internet went commericial. And as far as accomlishments, he did as much as the tv announcers and other notables that are listed. Besides serving in WW II on the USS Florence Nightengale. But you probably want another reference for that too!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.182.102 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we want and need references. This is an encyclopedia. At least two editors have explained this to you, and have even provided links so that you can read the Wikipedia guidelines for yourself.
I really don't understand — why do you think the rules don't apply to you?
I'm serious; this is a real, genuine question asked with respect, and I'd request a respectful answer as a courtesy.
In the meantime, I've asked an Administrator to protect the page. --Tenebrae 01:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of well-cited articles and people mentioned on Wikipedia from long before the Internet existed. Internet-accessibility of a reference is not a requirement for its use. There are lots of other options. Libraries are chock full of books that talk about people. There are Who's Who volumes that cover just about every city and field of endeavor. High school and college newspapers frequently write about interesting alumni. The possibilities are truly endless.
And yes, if there's something notable about your father's service on the Nightingale, a reference would be appropriate. After all, as a ship she's nothing special, and there were lots of seamen in the Navy. My own father was a sergeant in the Marine Corps and may very well have shipped on her to Guam, but neither of those facts make him a notable alumnus of either Curtis High School or Syracuse University. RossPatterson 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you won? If you demand citations for everything in here, you will only be a information repository. And you'll alienate the very same people who use the site, who can actual expand the knowledge base. Rules don't apply to me, when they are so draconian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.182.102 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 April 2007

While you're talking about the rules, everyone is supposed to sign their talk page posts. Just add "~~~~" at the end and the Wikipedia software will do the rest. RossPatterson 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't have clippings of newspaper articles and such things to prove what they did. The alumni on this list are known by millions, it's not easy to get on it. JRWalko 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE "you will only be a information repository": Well, yes. That's what an encyclopedia is. I respect 70.174.182.102 admitting that he believes the rules don't apply to him, and can only suggest that, in that case, he might want to leave Wikipedia and, if he truly wants to honor his father, build his father a web page with photos, anecdotes, etc.
That would be much better than one line buried here. --Tenebrae 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Tenebrae, who haven't accomplish anything because you spend the bulk of your time patrolling these pages! Why don't you get a life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.182.102 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 April 2007

Let's not hurl personal invective, please; it's a breach of Wikipedia rules of civility. You've said you believe rules don't apply to you. You disregard the fact four editors all disagree with your vanity edit. You insult other editors even when they attempt to be constructive.
I truly am saddened for you, by whatever drives you to treat other people like this, and I hope things get better for you so that you won't lash out this way. In the meantime, you need to understand that your disregard of Wikipedia guidelines is ethically wrong, and your mistreating others is morally wrong. --Tenebrae 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry anon, but the editor's are right. After all, I'm a relatively successful graduate of BTHS from 1994, but that doesn't make me a notable alumnus. You'd need references to support it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some general notes

[edit]

I have added several more alumni that have articles on wikipedia. I've had some trouble locating graduation years for them because some graduated over half a century ago and not much biographical material exists on them. If anyone knows their graduation dates I would ask that they would add it.

Secondly I believe that Liev Schreiber did not graduate from Tech. Online articles say that he attended and then transferred from the school.

Third, I think this article could benefit from references. That way the article could be promoted in status and maybe one day find itself on the featured article list. JRWalko 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your care and diligence!
I'd certainly like to help elevate this to "Good Article" status. What kinds of references are missing? It seems like there are scads of footnotes and references at the bottom of the page. Are you just referring to the scattered "citation requested" tags, or something more? Thanks --Tenebrae 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

[edit]

A very good article ... talk to the schools project..... needs some pics and then it could be a GA! Who did this? Victuallers 11:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni

[edit]

The Sections 2001-2002 and 2004 should be completely removed. Their presence just takes up space, and makes the article look unprofessional. --HockeyInJune 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Completely removed"? As opposed to partly removed? :-)   I think I've found a way to keep the information while removing the subheads, by placing the info in the indicia line at the top of the section. --Tenebrae 02:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the school inducting them into its "hall of fame" is not sufficient criteria to establish notability. Furthermore, there is no reason to group by induction year; simply make a list of all alumni alphabetically, and if some of the redlinks are determined to be not notable enough, remove them from the list. --Michael WhiteT·C 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Induction may not be sufficient for an article about that person but it's certainly sufficient to be listed. The process is fairly elaborate and the pool of candidates large. Names should also remain ordered by name, it's simply customary in this school to do that because the Hall of Fame members are classified by their induction year. The article should reflect the method of classification used in real life and not alter it simply for the sake of encyclopedic conformity. JRWalko (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:JRWalko. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brooklyn Tech logo.gif

[edit]

Image:Brooklyn Tech logo.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of classes

[edit]

Please add citations for any claims, as required under WP:VERIFY. This could include a print or online course catalog, etc. Also, please do not use vague, non-encyclopedic, conversational edits such as "New classes are being added all the time." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Brooklyn Technical High School's Wikipedia Article

[edit]

This article lacks a group of Students from the school who regularly overlook the Article and Talk Page. With this group of individuals, this article can be transformed into an A. From what I understand, there is also a lot of misinformation in the Major descriptions in "Tech in the 21st century." The region number is missing from the info box. There are many needed citations, along with important information that has been seemingly left out. There are many discussion topics which date from 2006 and early 2007 that need to be archived. There should be a list of people mantaining this article on the Talk Page. --HockeyInJune (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCaskill Controversy

[edit]

The section is redundant and wordy. I made changes that kept the substance (I was not logged on), but reduced the length. Even then, it needed to be shorter. McCaskill was a thorn in Tech's side for a while, so it deserves mention, but at the end of the day there are 2 real issues. He was accused of poor management and of fraud as to his child attending NYC public schools. We do not need a biography on the guy and all of his misdeeds. WP:UNDUE Psychocadet (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Racial imbalance

[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/nyregion/08specialized.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=nyregion

208.120.47.96 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ranking

http://www.usnews.com/listings/high-schools/new_york/brooklyn_technical_high_school

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2008/12/04/best-high-schools-top-magnet-schools.html

208.120.47.96 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/031011A8-083A-49B8-951D-3712391D30DF/55879/PublicSchoolcombined2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.47.96 (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enrollment

[edit]

I know the citation says the enrollment is 4,591, but I am a student at Brooklyn Tech and I know for a fact the population is 5,068. 24.188.34.19 (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but immaterial. Find a reliable published source that supports your knowledge and then you can put it in the article. In the mean time, the number that the NYC DoE says is the number we'll use. RossPatterson (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alumniThe tailgunner of the Enola Gay The inventor of the silicon gate transistor USAF 4 Star General James E. Dalton The founder of Computer Associates The founder of Barnes & Noble Lou Ferrigno (the incredible Hulk) Harry Chapin (musician)

A few other famous people most likely, I dunno how many exactly.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Arthur_H_Olsen/head.jpg

Nothing to be proud of, but it was also filmed in Spike Lee's music video called "Da Butt." :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dead techie

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/02/01/2009-02-01_brilliant_brooklyn_tech_student_and_pal_.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


www.nycsci.org/reports/11-20%20BrooklynTech%20Rpt.pdf http://www.nypost.com/p/news/hs_officials_let_thugs_off_hook_sOxnLYBDct7fjLrxF4Ji9H — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_6rGCE5Cgu9fvqajoG3uc4L

CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why some editor in August and now again today has twice put the absurd, physically impossible figure of over 8,000 students that some high-school comparison site claims from some unknown source, but the only accurate source is the NYC Dept. of Education itself. I've added that cite. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brooklyn Technical High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brooklyn Technical High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Brooklyn Technical High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brooklyn Technical 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brooklyn Technical 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Rooftop radio tower

[edit]

Which radio services use the rooftop radio tower? Is it mounted on insulators? When was it installed? Is it also used for non-broadcasting activities like meteorological measurements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.21.46 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brooklyn Technical 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brooklyn Technical 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet School Status

[edit]

Brooklyn Technical High School does not appear on the list of New York City magnet schools provided by this website: https://www.magnetschools.nyc/. The website's phone number refers you to the secretary of Todd Levitt, the director of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, indicating the website is managed by people with proper credentials. Furthermore, inferring from the definition of the term magnet school that Brooklyn Technical High School is a magnet school, as some users are suggesting should be done, appears to violate Wikipedia's original research policy. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a compelling argument that it's not a magnet high school. It also unambiguously states that the school is not a magnet school in U.S. News & World Report, something that Wikipedia specifically recognizes as a reliable source for such matters. It does seem like WP:OR to conclude that it's a magnet high school because we feel it fits a specific definition rather than relying on reliable sources, especially when the reliable sources contradict that conclusion. It's also very telling that there is no mention of the school being a magnet school on the school's website; on the school's admission page, where one would expect to find magnet school information, it instead makes clear that it is one of the specialized high schools in New York City. That's not the same as a magnet school. - Aoidh (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add to this, the National Center for Education Statistics's entry for the school listed here also specifically says it is not a magnet school. I think the Department of Education itself would be a good authority on whether or not a school is a magnet school. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Brooklyn Tech is not a magnet school as well. It's true that Tech is quite large - in fact, larger than any other specialized high school. However, the links Aoidh posted above (including US News and World Report, and Tech's own website) don't indicate that Tech is a magnet school at all. Further to the point, I tried searching "Brooklyn Tech" and "magnet school" on Google and found no relevant results to reliable sources, so describing Tech as a "magnet school" is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the NCES site is interesting, but I couldn't find their definition of a magnet there. I don't however, think that the federal DOE is the dispositive authority here. Wikipedia should be written for a broad, general audience, not using esoteric terms and the fact that, yes, NYC DOE does not call them "magnets" (which is probably why the NCES doesn't, it just collects the data reported not making independent judgements). The definition of a magnet school on Wikipedia specifically addresses this:

In the United States, the term "magnet school" refers to public schools with enrichment programs that are designed to attract and serve certain targeted subgroups of potential students and their families. There are two major categories of public magnet school structures in the United States, and although there is some overlap, their origins and missions remain largely distinct. The first type of magnet school is the fully competitive admissions magnet school. These schools use competitive admissions, usually rely on a standardized assessment score, and are structured to serve and support populations that are 100% gifted and/or talented students. Schools in this group generally rank among the top 100 public high schools in the United States. Examples of this type school and program include the Maine School of Science and Mathematics, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia, The School Without Walls in the District of Columbia, and nine schools that all use competitive admissions and are overseen by the New York City Department of Education (which still uses the older term "specialized school" instead of "magnet school" to refer to them).

Even if this did not specifically call out the Specialized high schools in New York City, that would still be the exact definition of these schools - they're competitive admission from across the entire school system, not just the smaller DOE school district they're in. It is not SYNTH or OR to use the plain meaning and interpretation of a phrase, these are canonical examples of magnet schools and for a general readership, they ought to be described and linked as such, irrespective of the NYC DOE terminology. For what it's worth, there are actually a lot of references to the SHSes as magnets, both in RSes and other online resources, stating it outright or merely grouping them as magnets in a direct way:
  1. US News and World Report ranking of best magnet schools listing NYC SHSes
  2. Slate
  3. Vox
  4. NBC
  5. NYPost
  6. & 7two blogs with casual mention of them as magnets
I think this is a case of WP:BLUE more than anything, and that WP should be using the broadest and simplest terms understood by most readers, not esoteric nitpicking. JesseRafe (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:BLUE necessarily applies here, as "magnet school" is a specific term that might not necessarily apply to specialized high schools. I'm wary of the fact that our own Wikipedia article on magnet schools is used as a definition here, as that entire bit was added by an IP editor three years ago without any citations at all. In fact, I just tagged the Wikipedia article as not having a citation for the claim that a specialized school is just an "older term" for a magnet school. Our article on specialized high schools in New York City makes no claim of them being magnet schools. It is OR to cite a phrase that literally was added to another article without any sort of verification, as well as possibly WP:CIRCULAR.
Since this issue potentially affects an FA (Stuyvesant High School) and several of these references specifically mention Stuyvesant, I'm going to check these references as well. Here's how they stack up:
  1. US News and World Report isn't bad, but there is the consideration that some of the specialized high schools (e.g. Staten Island Tech, LaGuardia) do count as magnet schools because of these schools' subject matter. US News and World Report does not list Brooklyn Tech on any listing of magnet schools, even though Tech is considered one of the 100 best schools in the country.
  2. The Slate article is clearly an opinion piece/contrarian viewpoint. This cannot be used to support a statement of fact.
  3. The Vox article is also clearly an opinion piece/contrarian viewpoint. This cannot be used to support a statement of fact.
  4. The NBC article is fine (it's specifically listed as reliable at WP:RSP) but also only mentions Stuy and Bronx Science in passing.
  5. The NY Post article is not only from a source listed as unreliable at WP:RSP, but also isn't even a statement of fact. It's a quote from Naval Ravikant joking about Stuy and Bronx Science.
  6. Neither of the blogs are reliable sources.
– Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUE absolutely does not apply, especially because reliable sources specifically and unambiguously contradict the claim that it is a magnet school. As for the sources cited above, the school does not appear on this site, and the rest are a few sources that are not directly discussing Brooklyn Technical High School, but even then they're not great sources for verification. They call them magnet schools apparently in the same way JesseRafe is, that they're either confusing the terms or engaging in WP:CITOGENESIS calling it a magnet school because the Wikipedia article does. This for example is some person's quote where he says it's a magnet school. I am inclined to give the Department of Education more value on determining what is a magnet school over a random tech investor's quote in the New York Post of all places. If this is the quality of sources used to support it being a magnet school, and the Department of Education itself is saying otherwise, I think we have to go with the authoritative source over quotes in passing from people who are in no way qualified to make that determination. I'm also really not following how not calling it a magnet school is "esoteric"; it's reflective of reliable sources. If the best argument for calling it a magnet school is because one editor feels it meets a specific definition, when reliable sources directly contradict that conclusion, then that is WP:OR and it's a sure sign that we should not be calling it that. - Aoidh (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee D McCaskill Article

[edit]

Copied content from Brooklyn Technical High School ‎; see that page's history for attributionBlackAmerican (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Brooklyn Technical High School ‎[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Medical missionaries to Community Partners

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 12 January 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kidkonnect8 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Remy.2005 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brooklyn_Technical_High_School&oldid=1206447173"