Talk:Brooklyn Technical High School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plagiarism and bias

This article currently draws (i.e. copies verbatim) heavily from this site, which includes a copyright notice on the bottom of every page. Unless someone has secured permission to release this material under the GFDL, the article should be verted to the last good version. -Aranel (Sarah) 17:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is this material copyrighted, it's heavily biased, since it comes from the Alumni association. Note, for example, that Mr. Matt Mandery is singled out for his "achievements" as a principal -- but only because he currently serves at a high position in Alumni Association (which he created in the first place).

I did a pretty heavy copy-edit of all but I think one or two sections, so without having seen the other site I'm pretty confident there's little verbatim left.

Also, I've added newspapers sources and other sources, as well as footnotes, so how do we get this off the "Articles lacking sources" list? - Tenebrae 03:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni

Only those insufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles should have extended entries. We should strive to make our biographies comprehensive and so merge in any worthwhile material from here. Some people may not yet have an article and for them we can leave a short bio here. None of them seem to mention anything about the alumni's time at the school. Let's try to cut this down to a simple list. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 10:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fact or vandalism

As of February 6, 2006 Dr. McCaskill is on immediate terminal Medical Leave prior to retiring from the Department of Education. I added a citation tag. Can anyone confirm? - Tenebrae 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, here is a link:

http://www.uft.org/news/mckaskill_bklyntech/ Artvandelay 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Art Vandelay" -- love it!

Thanks for the link; I heard about it on WINS radio this morning. Since the UFT News items are linkable rather than offline, I linked them directly from the footnoted 5 & 6 items, which is the usual Wikistyle for linkable items. (Footnotes generlaly used for unlinkable, offline, print sources.) Thanks for the response! And it's nice to see that sleazeball principal gone. — Tenebrae 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversions of anonymous wholesale hype

Why am I the one who is constantly being attacked. I incorporated all the information and still you and Tenebrae are refusing to present my information. I wish to take off all the information from the Tech website considering it is my intellectual property. Any course of action to put it up again must come from me. I wrote the history, I added some links, why do I get no credit or say. I have never been this insulted nor locked out of an organization like this in my entire life. I have never met a collective group of individual who conduct themselves in this manner. Neither compromise nor appeasement will do for you. Is there no fair arbitrator? Now I'm not only being restricted on the article page but also on the discussion. I am sorry I cannot express myself in the few words that everyone else seems to be capable of. I thought that discussion should include well thought out arguments. I am warning Wikipedia, that the history preceding the Tech in the 21st Century is my property and due to my research, and I can remove it at anytime.

Below is my response to Dr Debug. I don't know if I will return again to this site ever, but a site I once had hope for is now gone. After seeing the inner workings of this site, there is no hope for knowledge. You men wherever you are from and whatever your connection may be distort truth. I have agreed with you time and time again that what he principal did is true. Never have I ever debated you on that point. However, the truth is that Tech was not at the greatest point beginning in the 90s and as soon as this principal came in to enforce rules and to control the student body for a more productive environment, and with the overall successes of the 90s, the school became again a prominent institution. To not have that point stated is to distort, and also to have so much information on one man when there is so much mor that the school is about is to equate the school to him. In other words, Tech today is nothing more than a biographical history. This thought detests me. The only cronyism is you and your "Wikipedian" brothers. You have hijacked this site and there is no longer room for debate. Congratulations to Wikipedia and to the great glory of McCaskill, may his name live on while the name of Brooklyn Tech remains tainted due to your counterproductive methods.

PS I do not know where you learned grammar but it is not "encyclopedia entries", but rather "encyclopedic entries." You are trying to describe the nature of the entries, thus you must use an adjective. A noun usually is not used to describe another noun.

Dr Debug, you wrote to me that my addition has nothing to do with the previous story. This is correct, but does no one understand that the story that is currently there has no relation to the school. Does congruence in stories trump relevancy. I was intrigued by the lack of information on the article this past summer. Now I notice why no significant indiividual would contribute to this site. I have been warned by others of the biased behavior of the internet. Neutral means telling both sides fairly. For a school's website, concerning a school, a man's profile should not trump the school. I will work instead with the revamping of the actual Tech website and the Alumni Association's website to bring about the appropriate information to the public. McCaskill has done enough harm to the school, I will not continue to let him do it on this website.

I've reverted changes made by IP 130.91.45.219 (prestemp.admin.upenn.edu), since they are heavily biased and intended to soften the controversy surrounding Dr. McCaskill. -- a. 11:24, 7 February 2006

I've just found myself having to do it as well. Be advised, anonymous 130.91.45.219, that any more such attempts will lead to your being blocked by Administrators.

I've reverted to the last User:Tenebrae version, since there were soooo many wholesale changes to try and wade through, though I did go back in to include the two minor changes by the anonymous 71.138.111.33, whom I'd ask to register. — Tenebrae 06:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandals: We have your number. Numbers, actually. Admin has been asked to block, as follows:

* 130.91.45.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 130.91.44.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 130.91.45.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appear to be sock puppets. They keep doing the same wholesale non-NPOV whitewashing of Brooklyn Technical High School. -- Tenebrae 22:57, 8 February 2006

I didn't realize there is an actual discussion site for articles. Last year I was wondering what was on the internet concerning Tech, so I googled it. I discovered this Wikipedia site for the first time and noticed that it lacked any information. I conducted research and redid the article so it would include a better intro, history, alumni, and I had a lot more but it was edited down I guess for the best because I wanted it to be geared towards young people who are interested in attending Tech. I am currently a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and have not met Dr. McCaskill, however, from what I hear I cannot be too happy with the man who leads my alma mater. Nonetheless, I fixed the article up not to deter people from Tech but to help them with information. I did change anything recently concerning his discretions but once I heard about his resignation I decided it was time to finally clean the slate, while still acknowledging of his issues by mentioning his resignation due to violation of rules and also leaving websites that had forums dedicated to the discussion such as indsideschools.org and bthsnews.org, which is a great forum. I was disheartened to get a message from an administrator who I believe is 14 years old (amazing what kids do today). I hope we can reach an agreement. I sent a letter to the administrator and to Wikipedia this morning explaining that I do not agree with what the old principal did, and I understand it is part of the discussion of how to fix Tech if he is still there, but now that he is gone, and from what I gather going to be replaced with someone who has great ability, then I do not know what the problem is. I care about the school and I put my faith behind Mr. Asher and wish him the best. Now is not the time to complain, but to rejoice that complaints have finally led to this outcome. Let us work together towards a better future. If you wish to discuss about a person, who is no longer connected to an institution, I suggested to Wikipedia and the administrator that a separate page be set up for McCaskill and you can link his name to that. Otherwise, he is no longer concerned with this institution and it should remain that way, especially on a website that is becoming increasingly popular and increasingly easy to abuse. Thank you.

Whoever you are or claim to be, you wrote non-enclyclopedic hype that is surprising coming from a professor who presumably has read encyclopedia entries. For example:

With state-of-the-art computer classrooms, its location in a popular neighborhood, and the support of its alumni, Brooklyn Technical High School is poised for greatness to come as we begin this new century.

After 13 years, the school was ready for new leadership and new ideas. While longevity is certainly good for stability, in a changing world there needs to be new ideas.

This sort of biased hype is routinely deleted as per Wikiepdia standards if if appears anywhere -- here, a McCaskill entry, or any other entry. Please register and read Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines - Tenebrae 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Dr. McCaskill has departed, his story is a relevant part of Tech's history and must be included to show how it has come to be in its current situation. This page is not intended to be a recruiting brochure for future Tech students. So long as information is factual and pertinent, it should not be replaced by nebulous, hopeful statements about the future, which are clearly opinions. Wikipedia pages are not invitations for whitewashes. Anon. 15:19, 10 February 2006.

My dear fellow I do not know where this hostility stems from or what damage this retired individual has brought to you. I can concede your point that some of it is hype but can you blame anyone for fondness. However, this site is to be used through concsensus. I have agreed with you that the principal who once led this school had his issues. However, he is gone and so are his issues. His issues should not go into that much length. Looking at the other specialized high school sites one can see pages of praise for their school, and I know for sure that there is criticism of their leadership. Now that the leadership has changed and since it is so evident from your passion that you are enthusiasts of the institution, let us work together on this, as I actually would like to start working on it again to increase information on extracurriculars and specific majors. Since you know my connection with the institution, I like to hear your connection and your fondness to it. I can agree to have the discretions of the former principal but not in the detail that it is now. I care about the school too much to care about this person. For instance there is no reason to delete the information concerning Mr. Asher. I met him a few years back and approved of his leadership and abilities and he now deserves credit for backing and support.

To this anonymous individual — feel free to add NPOV facts. But wholesale deletions of other people's factual material that has been on the site for some time is working against the de facto consensus. Detailed, verified, clearly cited and linked-to New York Times, Daily News, etc. quotes are not for one person to simply erase without, yes, consensus on the Discussion page. (Also, no one deleted the Asher reference, and in fact, it has been added to and fleshed out.)

You have met Mr. Asher "and approved of his leadership and abilities". You have only registered over the last day or two, and have edited only this entry. I ask if we are speaking with Dr. McCaskill. — Tenebrae 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading the long, anonymous graf above, I'm afraid I must take exception to the writer's suggestion that a very public figure must have done "damage" to me or to the other editors reverting questionable and wildly inappropriate changes. Any New Yorker who reads the papers could have followed this infamous principal's indiscretions for the last few years.

This documented, journalistically confirmed abstract of his actions speaks of more than a single individual, but of a system and a bureaucracy that kept such a person in place. This information appears in an appropriate section, and, given the wide public documentation and the spotlighted prominence of the school, plus the consensus for the past month, and the concern by many of us over over the hype-changes, provides strong evidence that this documentation is not being given undue weight. - Tenebrae 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My dear man, I do not wish to be an enemy. It is true I have recently registered because I did not realize that I can be attacked in such a way. Allegations of me being McCaskill are ridiculous. I do not know the man, but give him credit for being a little more intelligent than to come and register a day after major controversy. Below I have sent you a copy of what I originally intended for the website when I started working on it in the summer. If you notice I included the controversy over BTHSnews.org and how they have filled the void due to the principal's stubbornness in censorship (In fact I really love their website, it's crazy what kids do these days). Do not accuse me of just appearing from nowhere. I see no stake for you in this discussion, other than as a concerned citizen. I hope and surmise that your involvement is not merely due to public interest, because there is no public interest in diminishing the esteem of individuals who are related to the institution in any way. There is a time, place and manner for everything. A week ago, this was a great place to talk about what was wrong with Tech and who was involved in it. Thus, time, place and manner had been appropriate. But now with his removal, it is no longer appropriate to continue a crusade that damages the integrity of other individuals who are connected with it. If there is any one who seems to be engaged in the passions and emotions of man I would have to say it is you, with great hesitance of course considering I have no idea of who you are. Now of course, if you are one of these individuals who is connected in any way other than the body politic at large, then I have praise for you in being involved in this crusade to fix Tech. However, these minutiae of a man's wrongdoings during his tenure at a school do not concern the school when his tenure ends and his wrongdoings do not persist any longer from plaguing the school. I do propose, however, if what you said before is right, that an article dealing with this principal be added to Wikipedia since he is such a strong and intriguing public figure as you have mentioned. Any person you consider of such status deserves his own page. Thus, we can keep this school's site as information solely concerning the school and at the same time have a link to Dr. McCaskill's profile detailing his issues at the school. People with curiosity will definitely go to it and read more. However, people entering this page are not coming here to discuss the administration, rather they want a place to know about a school not about a person. I have conceded you on certain points and if you noticed on the more recent articles erased those passages in which you thought were view point biased. However, you must concede the point as well that this individual certainly, as of now, has nothing to do with the institution and should remain that way. I am willing to include controversy regarding Alcala and the radio station grant. However, I cannot quote every piece of Winerip's article. If someone wishes to know more they can go to the article themselves. The attendance issue concerning the strike as well is irrelevant. Though it is not a contentious issue, I do not see why it is there actually. Every school had a shortage of students during the strike, thus, if you adjusted the rate to account for the lack of a mass transit system for that week it would not be abnormal in any sort of way. Maybe there can be a wider discussion of the strike to tie it into general history. Regardless, the matter here is to move on and support Tech and hopefully end this debate over this utterly insignificant individual, as he has been reduced to no power of any issues concerning the school, and thus move on to create a better website for people who want to know about Tech and not about Dr. McCaskill.

It is not wrong to want to support Tech. If you care about Tech, you contribute to this page. Hence if there is something wrong, you can grieve here if it is legitimate enough to be made a public issue, or if it is a public already, until it gets resolved. The issue has been resolved. Hence, there is no reason to grieve. It would be counterproductive, and to much individual disutility, unless due to some extreme and unsual circumstances with the individual, to set up a site in order to produce evil for an institution. Now in this circumstance, we are discussing a public school, not Hillary Clinton or any other major figure whose site gets defaced every day, by whom I am sure are people with an agenda against whom they are attacking. However, issues concerning our government is of much concern, and you are right to be pointing to issues of the structure in which this individual was able to flourish. However, he was the head of Brooklyn Tech. Thus, by a priori it would make sense that it was not Tech's institution (in fact, by all accounts it seems Tech's institution was the one which wanted change the most and was also hurt the most) that was at fault here, since there was no control over him considering he was the one who controlled all. Therefore, in a hierarchy, if he is the head of Tech, but not the head of the entire system, then there are people above him who are the one's who helped him flourish. Thus, the fault must be at a higher level and that is the Department of Education. In the Times article, I myself found it curious that a woman, I believe the name was Farina, had known the principal for years and did not know he lived in New Jersey. This is ridiculous. However, she is not an employee of Brooklyn Tech. She is an employee of the NYC DOE, thus it is with them that your gripe should be directed against. Tech has suffered enough from the institutional issues that you wish to address. After all these years it is time to change them, but by using Tech's page as an outlet will not help anyone, and in fact will hurt Tech, now in this time in which change can actually yield results. Thus, it would serve to much utility to everyone who is concerned, that information appears in the right place and in the right context. The right information for Tech is information concerning Tech and information that would make Tech better. The information that was on the site a week ago helped, but now it does not. The right place for the information you wish to have in much detail deserve to be present on the NYC DOE's article on Wikipedia in order for the changes that you want. Otherwise, low esteem will continue to occur at Tech despite having its cancer cut, and the institutional problems will create a new mess in the future.

Below is the original idea I had for the site. I thank you for your time and hope for future cooperation. [Deleted per Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines -- you can't post your personal, alternative version of the site on the Discussion page - Tenebrae 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)]

Dear God, is there any policy you do not follow? I ask for constructive criticism for my original piece and as usual you swat me with the book. How am I to get my case heard in this unilateral debate?

I just reviewed my discussion piece here and realized that someone has changed the picture that I once saved under this site as Brooklyn Technical High School. I do not know whose campus it is below but it sure is a beautiful place. I can hardly imagine that there was a need to use the same name for the photo. I will try to find the picture I intended to use and redo this error that has been done. [Note: The above long, unsigned post appears to be by User:Becos according to the History list for this page]

Violation: Wikipedia is not a soapbox

To the ANONYMOUS poster: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM YOUR LONG POSTS, in accordance with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. You have been consistently in violation of this, and one more instance will result in a formal complaint to Admin, who will track your IP # since you insist on violating yet another Wikipedia policy and posting anonymously. Please read Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines.

In response to your correction of my term: I specificaly and distinctly meant what I wrote, "encyclopedia entries", as in, "an entry written in of for a book or books called an encyclopedia". Whereas "an encyclopedic entry", with the adjective, refers to something written in the form of something written for an encyclopedia -- for example, in a term paper. This elementary distinction, similar to that between "historic" and "historical", again makes one wonder whether you are the "professor" you claim to be. As does your misspelling "view point" and the garbled syntax of many of your sentences.

Finally, for the record, the edits made by everyone else contributing to the site have been bit-by-bit and self-adjusted by the editors working together. You came in to wipe out months of work with highly opinionated and biased rewrites, working from a false premise altogether -- that this entry should be "directed to potential students" and "support the school". That is the work of a recruitment brochure, not an encyclopedia entry. And to accuse other editors of cronyism for trying to uphold the five pillars of Wikipedia is incivility to say the least. - Tenebrae 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In my most recent addition I wiped out nothing. I kept everything we have been arguing about and instead of editing me you disregarded me as usual. If you want to read garbled syntax take a look at Kant. This is not a site for the public, this is a site for a limited group of connected individuals. If you are the best positioned to write on this site, then close everyone else. You do not need me. You can go back to writing about your comic books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Becos (talk • contribs) .