Jump to content

Talk:Grossmont Union High School District

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

I am concerned that much of the information on this page does not have any citations. Also most of the information in the history section is only a few years old. There is little, if any, older information. This would help the article quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion concern

[edit]

I am concerned by Jojhutton's repeated deletions of my contributions to this article. Contrary to his opinion, I believe that the text I added is written in a neutral point of view and without bias. I have provided thorough and adequate references to my contributions. Furthermore, I find that all of the added information is highly relevant and provides a more detailed and critical analysis of the subject with regard to its recent history and other important and related current events. Rather than simply delete the text, which I see as unsatisfactory and unhelpful, I propose that he or another user take the time to edit it so as to render it more neutral and less biased. The Grossmont Unified High School District (GUHSD) has been the subject of controversies and scandals, which were not sufficiently addressed in the article prior to my contributions. Moreover, GUHSD has, without question, entered the realm of politics in recent years. Not to provide a discussion of its politicization would be detrimental to its understanding. User:Oleander arms —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for commenting on the talk page. You may not be aware of how the editing process works, but if you add something and it gets reverted, it is not policy to just add it again. You must begin a discussion, especially when the information bears way too much weight and is not written NPOV. They way you have it written now must be reverted at once. I am willing to discuss, but I will still remove the POV as it has no place on wikipedia. Please wait until there is a consensus before adding it again. And just a heads up for you, naming a section Discriminatory policies is sort what I like to call a POV red flag.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Jojhutton has a lot in common with Ms. Priscilla Schreiber, whom I discussed more extensively in my contributions to this article. Both enjoy deleting. Well... deletion will not make these issues (or me) just go away! It is well known that GUHSD was one of Proposition 8's most prominent proponents. Prop. 8 had nothing to do with California schools and the governing board knew this. Nevertheless, it chose to support it. After learning of GUHSD's resolution, which I mentioned, I became interested in its board members. After doing only a little research, I discovered that the board has had a questionable history with the subject of LGBT rights. Ms. Schreiber and another member of the board even published an opinion piece in the local newspaper in which they spouted anti-LGBT rhetoric. In addition, the board has attempted to fight anti-discrimination laws. These are facts and I provided adequate resources and references in my contributions. In what way is discussing facts not neutral? I do not wish to start a debate about gay marriage with Jojhutton. To do so would be both futile and irrelevant. The key issues at hand here are and should be the policies, actions and history of the board, which has proven to be overwhelmingly partisan and, in the opinion of many parents, ineffective. In the aftermath of the 2001 school shootings, GUHSD was faced with numerous lawsuits, claiming that the deaths and injuries which occurred could have been prevented. This is very important and should be discussed more. Readers of Wikipedia should know more about the historical events which took place in this particular school district. They should know more about how the school district is and was being administered. In what kind of environment are students learning there? Will I, as a parent, feel comfortable allowing my children to attend one of these high schools? Does the district tolerate bullying? Weapons? If one or more of my children turns out to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, will they be granted the same protection the law guarantees all other children? These are not biased questions. My contributions provided information that was lacking in the article. The absence of this information was blinding. I reiterate that I provided all the necessary citations for the added text. If Jojhutton dislikes the style or tone of the text, I recommend that he revise it. I will not be offended. Articles on Wikipedia should be written in a neutral manner, I agree. But if he dislikes the content of the text, I will take much offense, rightfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleander arms (talk • contribs) 04:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. If you feel that the information is pertanent and needs to be told, then please go to a web-site that allows such information. As such, any information that is added to wikipedia must conform to its policies. The section that you added had serious problems with WP:Undue weight, NPOV, and WP:bias. I am not arguing whether or not the einformation is true or not, I am saying that wikipedia articles must be written in a nuetral point of view. It is not up to me to fix it. It is up to you to write it nuetrally.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the text to render it more straightforward. Please read it before simply deleting it. I have made it as neutral as possible. It is not commentary. It is not a "blog." I have cited the entire text with trustworthy sources. I repeat, the information is factual and pertinent... and by the way, I read your profile. You work for GUHSD. If anyone is biased here, it is you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleander arms (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still has problems with WP:Undue Weight, and I failed to mention recentism earlier. With WP:Recentism, the problem is that now, about half of the article is devoted to events that happened in just the last few years. The district is nearly ninety years old. We can't add just the new stuff without balancing the older events. I still don't see where you balanced the POV. Adding alledged does not balance the POV on the section title. See WP:Weasel. You don't need to add the alledged on the section title for the sexual misconduct since the teacher was convicted. Still the section has merit, but the problem is that if you add the Helix teachers, then what about all of the others through the years? Its not fair to add those and not any others. In order to gain a more balanced discussion, perhaps you can ask for a third opinion, if you think I am not being fair? Although I still see the sections as against wikipedia policy, you ARE attempting to make it better, so I will not remove it at this time, but be advised that if a consensus is reached to remove the information, we will have no choice but to either delete it or to make major changes.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The added text is "recentist." I attempted to avoid this. My original intent was to contribute only information regarding GUHSD's support of Prop. 8, which is significant and needed to be included in the article. After writing the section, however, I realized that it sounded awkward in the context of the article. Therefore, I researched the school district some more. I went as far back as I could with limited means (i.e. using the internet). 2007- anti-discrimination lawsuit. 2006- sex crimes. 2002- the San Diego Union-Tribune opinion piece and the school video controversy. 2001- the school shootings. 1999- the grant to study campus abuse, bullying, etc. To go back further would require much more extensive research. I do not have access to the materials which would allow me to do so. I want to know this information as well. You complained about this before I even contributed to the article. You work there. Can you add something?

There are so many more questions to be asked. What is the demographic profile of the student body? Of the faculty? How have they changed over the years? Are some schools more ethnically diverse than others? Do some schools get more funding than others? Unlike the other schools in the district, Helix became the district's first charter school in the '90s. What is test performance like at the charter schools in comparison with the traditional high schools? Which schools have more/less discipline problems? What is the student/teacher ratio? How many kids are in each classroom on average? How many go on to college? What were these numbers like 50 years ago? What kind of education/degrees do the members of the school board have/hold? How many languages are spoken in the school district? Do the kids wear uniforms? How have school curricula changed over the years? I too wish all this information was more readily accessible, especially as this is a public school and the district's current website is terrible (and hasn't been updated in a few years, it seems).

In paragraph 3 of the section 'Campus Violence' I wrote:

Before the incident, Hoffman allegedly made references to the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.

In this phrase, the word allegedly could be interpreted as, what Wikipedia calls, a "weasel" word. I disagree. This is a paraphrase from a newpaper article I read about the shooting. I do not find it inappropriate. I believe that information such as this, although undoubtedly hearsay, provides perspective and background to the incident which took place.

Also, I read through Wikipedia's definition of neutral point of view. Any student of history understands that History is inherently subjective. Histories are narratives and always told from particular points of view. Indeed, sometimes it is very useful to be biased. There are often many truths to one subject and bias is the only way to uncover them. Neutrality and objectivity should be strived for in an encyclopedic history, but sometimes exceptions must be made, especially when current events demand. The addition of information regarding Prop. 8 is urgent, as readers will be looking for this information. I find it more useful to include it than to ignore it. Don't you? Isn't the point of an encyclopedia (and the WWW) to spread knowledge and help people understand what is going on in the world? I tried as hard as I could to be "neutral" in my text, providing factual information and sources. Simply to write "GUHSD voted in favor of Prop. 8" would not be sufficient. Why did they vote for it? I didn't answer that question, but I tried to provide more information so that readers could answer it for themselves. Do you think my text was misleading?

Also, the "tiny minority" concept does not apply here. Wikipedia provides the example of the flat earth idea -- how in an article about the earth, someone might want to add a section about people who still believe the earth is flat to this day (highly improbable, but I get the idea). The issue of gay rights is incomparable. We're talking about a huge minority that truly exists. How anti-humanist it would be to ignore it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleander arms (talk • contribs) 08:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Grove School

[edit]

I have been casually and silently observing the recent edits for the past week. Although I see where you may be going with all of this, I must intercede. You may not be aware that the Lemon Grove school that you refered to in one of the sections is not a memeber of the GUHSD, nor has it ever been. The information is misplaced and needs to be removed from the article and placed somewhere else. Perhaps the article on Lemon Grove itself.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Lemon Grove a feeder school district of GUHSD? From what I read, Roberto Alvarez also later attended Grossmont High School. I agree, though. I think there is too much information there. Plus, the Lemon Grove incident already has its own article. LGSD does not, however. I'm trying to find information about the early history of the high school. It seemed to me that the 1931 San Diego desegregation case would have had an effect on the policies of the high school too... I'll remove/edit it.--Oleander arms (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a feeder school, but with its own school board and staff. It is not a member of GUHSD. The paragraph was misleading, since it had nothing to do with the district at all, and should have been relagated to another article. If there is not an article on the Lemon Grove school district, you are welcome to create one, as long as it it created from NPOV.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Grossmont Union High School District. 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 16:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grossmont Union High School District. 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) 15:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grossmont Union High School District. 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) 11:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grossmont_Union_High_School_District&oldid=1202476318"