Jump to content

Talk:Horace Mann School/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Model UN team

Currently there is a sentence in the text that states "....and a Model UN team which has won more conferences than any other team in the nation." I have placed a {{Fact}} template after this sentence. This reeks of POV. What is the justification for the words "won more conferences than any other team" since there are no verfiable results presented in the article to back up this claim. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I decided to just remove it. A number of claims have been sitting around here, after a request to source them, and I don't see sources coming. So I say, if its not sourced, just remove it. --Rob 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Horace Mann does have the best Model UN team in the country. You're clearly just jealous because you weren't good enough to attend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theblacklarl (talk • contribs) .
So it should be easy for you to verify such a claim, right? David D. (Talk) 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.horacemann.org/home/content.asp?id=1142 Theblacklarl 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Theblacklarl

Ok, I see a little progress here. Now, just use this url as a footnote for the statement you added, and I won't need to remove it (in other words citations go in the article itself, not just the talk page, or edit summary). And thanks for signing your post. --Rob 00:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The above link appears to be a citation for the colleges to which graduates matriculate. (Though I don't know why Yale keeps being mentioned so prominently, other schools are more frequently attended). We still need a citation for the Model U.N. assertion. -Willmcw 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I attend Horace Mann, so I will ask some people I know if they have any info to back up this statement. -Fbv65edel 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Top graduates go to?

In my opinion the following sentence "The top students from each class attend either Harvard, Yale or Princeton." makes no sense at all. Theblacklarl cites the following as evidence "Crosslist HM Cum Laude Society with HM College Matriculation. See HM Mannikin for proof." I can't find this proof. Even if it is true, I still don't see why it is necessary to point out where the 'top students' go to after HM since it is completely subjective and will change as future classes graduate. Why wouldn't one of these students go to Stanford, John Hopkins, Columbia, Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, Cal Tech, MIT and so on? I will delete that sentence again unless someone can come up with a good rationale for including it. David D. (Talk) 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So how do we know that the top graduates ONLY go to Yale, Harvard and Princeton? Is this a school rule or something?David D. (Talk) 16:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the information would be better if we omit the word "top", and simply list the notable schools that graduates attend. -Willmcw 21:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, as someone who goes to the school, I can safely say that this is true. Most students go onto highly selective schools including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Amherst, Swarthmore, Vassar, Penn, and Cornell.
I added citations for the college information. That took a while. I hope you are happy. If you want to obtain the WSJ and Worth articles direct from the source, you will need to pay $2.95 for each, but you can certainly do so as well.
Much better David D. (Talk) 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.

This article was obviously written by an angry competitor, most likely a member of the Dalton or Riverdale school who cannot get over the fact that he or she just lost miserably to the 2005 state champion Varsity Soccer Team or to the Horace Mann Model UN club.

Or some one who does not care for the trivia since it detracts from the article? David D. (Talk) 07:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you please differentiate between trivia and fact? Isn't any page about a celebrity, such as Britney Spears, just trivia and also a violation of Wikipedia's rule about not creating pages about individual people, and as David D. often says of numerous edits to the Horace Mann page, not encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.76.182.20 (talk • contribs) .
Good question. I have not seen the BS page but I would not be surprised if it was all trivia. Wikipedia tolerates such pages because it has no option. I'm not sure why I even came to have this school on my watch list but it seems that there are an exceptional number of edits could be viewed as trivia. Or attack edits from Dalton and other rivals? Obviously such classifications are subjective.
With respect to Horace Mann, if the page is to be useful and not degenerate into a vanity page, it is best to stick to information that fits the big picture role of HM. Personally, I think mentioning specific pupils is not part of the big picture. Since students come and go only the very notable students should be mentioned. Such instances would be rare, although, a student winning the Pulitzer prize would be an example. A good rule of thumb is will the information be relevant in ten years time? If not then don't add it. David D. (Talk) 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that edits about specific students are not appropriate for this page or Wikipedia in general, but I must put to question your "rule of thumb". Isn't relevance based upon a person's point of view and/or bias? The only way to prevent people from writing based upon their point of view would be to allow only unbiased people to write, and isn't that contrary to Wikipedia's philosophy of allowing anyone to edit? It seems as though this question is one for the greater Wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikster72 (talk • contribs) .
I think the main point is that you need to be objective and stand back from your own bias. Obviously it is hard for one to be completely NPOV but it is possible to try hard. David D. (Talk) 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox:School

Horace Mann School
New Library & Theater Building

Magna est veritas et prævalet
(Great is the truth and it prevails)
Type Private
Established 1887
Head of School Dr Thomas M. Kelly
Enrollment approx. 1,750
Campus Urban and Suburban
Location 231 West 246th St.
Riverdale, NY 10471
Website www.horacemann.org
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style "has the simple purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format." The original HTML format was easy to read and in fact was more appropriate for this school, as there is no "Principal" but rather a Head of School. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.76.182.20 (talk • contribs) .
In that case the html should be replaced with wiki code. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Part of "easy to read" is the edit panel. Extensively formatted pages are intimidating for editors unskilled in coding. --Dystopos 18:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"elite school"

  • While the definition of the word "elite" is not a point of view, its application as a label for Horace Mann School is a point of view. Superiority as a concept requires a qualitative judgment which goes beyond objective statement of fact. If, in fact, Horace Mann School is elite, then the facts will convey that judgment to the receptive reader by themselves. --Dystopos 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't see the problem with the word elite. It was added months ago, and considering the intensive moderation by David D. and his violent hate for POV, I refuse to believe that he would have missed removing the world elite. A well written piece of writing, Wikipedia or not, should not leave any doubt in the reader's mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.76.182.20 (talk • contribs) .
  • I have a different opinion of what constitutes good writing. Unless some independent, indisputable and transparent source certifies Horace Mann as "elite" I will stand by the editorial decision to remove it from the opening sentence. Even if such a source is provided, it would be better to describe their criteria and Mann's attainment in a transparent way, rather than merely provide an adjective which can mean different things in different contexts. If you mean by "elite" that Mann demonstrates academic excellence, then describe their academic accomplishments. If you mean "selective admissions" then describe the admissions process. If you mean "successful alumni" then describe that. Wikipedia aims to be a source of verifiable information, not an indicator of personal opinions, even if they are well-reasoned. --Dystopos 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Contrary to opinion I have not been through this article with a fine tooth comb. I revert the POV that is added. I agree with Dystopos with regard to the use of the word elite. If the school is "elite" it will speak for itself. This need to add superlatives suggests an inferiority complex that is not justified in this case. David D. (Talk) 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A journalistic source was provided as evidence that Horace Mann is, in fact, an "elite" school. A journalist's opinion is still an opinion. The facts can speak for themselves. --Dystopos 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You make good points. And it is not hard to imagine that the author is a graduate of HM doing an article about an HM alum. Cronyism at its best ;-) I will not oppose changes to my edits. I do agree that facts speak for themselves and HM has nothing to hide so superlatives in fact do more harm than good. David D. (Talk) 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • To reiterate, finding an off-hand sentence written by reporter that refers to Mann as "an elite school" is a journalistic characterization, not an encyclopedic fact. If the article cited were written about the status of the school, then it could be taken to be the editorial position of the Times, but in fact, the article is a puff piece recounting the history of the Record from the Riverdale neighborhood regional section... and doesn't actually even say "elite" (it does however, as reprinted in the linked source, misspell "for"). A journalist's opinion is still an opinion. The facts can speak for themselves. --Dystopos 23:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I had the wrong puff piece. The detailed hard-hitting investigative scoop about the host of a popular archeology show on cable television makes reference to said host's high school as "elite" and I'm to believe that this characterization carries the full authority of the Times editorial desk (the same, I might remind you, that was recently helmed by an Alabamian until lapses in journalistic integrity by others in the staff led to his resignation). "Josh Bernstein, the chatty, photogenic host of "Digging for the Truth" on the History Channel could be the best thing for archaeology's image since Harrison Ford cocked his hat..." Nope, no puff there. My point remains. You can't use a characterization as a stated fact. If you really want to use this in the intro, you could rewrite it to say. "The 'Horace Mann School, characterized as "elite" by New York Times writer Felicia Lee in an offhand comment in an interview with Josh Bernstein promoting his History Channel series "Digging for the Truth", was founded in 1887 in New York City. But that just seems a bit inappropriate, don't you think?. --Dystopos 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Model UN

"Having won the Harvard University Model United Nations Conference numerous times, Horace Mann has earned a place as one of the top Model UN teams in the country." Which was added by 140.247.156.10 (talk · contribs).

This is a POV statement and vague. What does numerous times mean? Twice or twenty? This type of information is also date sensitive and next year HM may have one of the worst teams. The only relevent information would to mention how many times they have won the tournament. It would be appropriate to say they have won it more times than any other school (if they have). It is not appropriate to make a claim that they are one of the top teams in the country. You need to present the information and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion. David D. (Talk) 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence was added back by 140.247.156.10 (talk · contribs) with no effort to clarify the questions above. The edit summary merely said:
" The facts are very very clear. Please contact mitchel_francis@horacemann.org, the Faculty Advisor, to confirm the fact that Horace Mann won the listed awards. Please stop removing factual info" [1]
No the facts are not clear at all. It is silly to suggest we contact someone to verify. that misses the whole point of wikipedia. If this is the only way to verify then it is not notable enough to be in the encylopedia. By the way there are no awards listed, only a vague mention of numerous awards. Facts that cannot be verified are not suitable for inclusion in an encylopedia. Some facts thats can be verfied may still not be suitable for the encylopedia if they are not notable. These "numerous" awards could well be in the latter category too. User:140.247.156.10, if you want them to be included then make a case. As it stands you have no case. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a fine example of why information needs to be verified before being added to the article. Despite edit summaries that assure us that the information being added is correct.

140.247.156.10 (talk · contribs) has contribute to the Harvard Model UN section with edit summaries such as:

"Why do you assume that I'm lying? And you're wrong. According to Wiki "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." That's what this info is. Plz do not change this page again. "[2]
"The facts are very very clear. Please contact mitchel_francis@horacemann.org, the Faculty Advisor, to confirm the fact that Horace Mann won the listed awards. Please stop removing factual info. "[3]

Finally culminating in the addition to the article of the sentence below:

Horace Mann has won the Harvard Model UN Conference five times in the last six years.[4]

I trusted this edit without seeing verifiable source and changed this to reflect specific years to so that the article is relevent for someone reading two year from now.

Horace Mann has won the Harvard Model UN Conference five times between 2000 and 2005.[5]

Now along comes 207.76.182.20 (talk · contribs) saying that "Removed falsehoods from the Model UN section" And replacing the sentence with:

Horace Mann's most recent victory at the Harvard Model UN Conference was in the year 2003. [6]

So who do we trust? Since this is not verifiable to those of us "not in the know" I suggest we just cut it out. Some of you think I am being heavy handed with my edits in this article but this example of inaccurate editing from the anon IP's speaks for itself. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

mayor's cup

Mayor's cup is a tournament which every NYC high school team participates in. So obviously the winner is the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.156.10 (talk • contribs) .

But I was wondering if it was a national competition? And if not, do the NY teams rate highly at a national level? If it's just some local cup why should readers of wikipedia care? David D. (Talk) 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


It's only for NYC; NYC teams do rank highly on a national level; and any time a given team is the best of close to a thousand high schools that bespeaks the extreme athletic ability of that team

What I wrote on David D.'s talk page...pertinent to this as well

I understand that some people have been calling for the removal of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale from the recognition section. However, these are the only schools the ranking pays attention to. Writing that the article speaks about "good colleges and universities" is simply wrong. We need to get the POV out of this article by sticking to objective facts as much as possible. The WSJ article was about Ivy League Schools plus Pomona, Stanford & Duke minus Columbia, I guess if you want that included it can go in there as well, but again just saying "good colleges and universities" is imprecise for the WSJ and flat out wrong for the Worth. We shouldn't be removing HYP just because someone wants it removed. - GreatBarrington (talk · contribs)

Judging from your edits on your talk page you're here to play hard ball. I would draw your attention to the comments made on the talk page for one HM's IP numbers. User_talk:207.76.182.20 (talk · contribs). Basically personal knowledge is not verifiable even if it is factual.
In answer to your comment above, there are two cites for the comment that HM graduates attend "prestigeous universities and colleges"; note it did not say good. The first says its a feeder school for Yale, Princton and Yale (note that cite is not from the worth magazine itself but is citing the worth magazine) The second is a list of all the schools that the graduates have attended in the last five years.
Many editors on this page feel the need to glorify this school by association. Is it not well known enough as its own institution? This page should not read like PR page published by HM. That's what happens when alumni contribute. Also it should not be a list of trivia and gossip, that's what happens when some current students (including those from Dalton and other rival schools) contribute. Finally it should be accurate and we already have an example with respect to the Model UN team above, of information being added that is contradictory. With unverifiable material the safest thing to do is delete it. A known fact is not necessarily verifiable, sorry. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional advice from Barrington Carter pertinent mainly to this page

(the following copied from User Talk:Dystopos for reference by editors of this article)

"I live in Birmingham, Alabama. I intend to spend some time making the articles about Birmingham rich and useful. I will also contribute to other articles as I have the opportunity and resources."

What led you to edit the Horace Mann article? Without trying to sound like an asshole, I don't think your comments have been helpful at all. I'm sure, however, that if I tried to edit things I didn't know anything about on your high school's page I'd sound like an idiot too. But I'd ask that before you edit the page again you go ahead to the website: www.Horacemann.org, read up on HM on the internet, and read "Horace Mann, a History" before you edit again. This isn't meant to be personal, I'm going to be posting it to everyone else who has been making unhelpful contributions due to their lack of knowledge. I don't insist that everyone who edit be an alum, but I think it's fair to ask that those who edit for substance know something about what they are talking about.

Respectfully submitted,
Barrington Carter

You'll probably notice, if you examine the page history, that I have not attempted to add information about the school where I could not find a verifiable source. I have approached the page as someone who has an interest in Wikipedia. I believe that my participation in the Horace Mann article has been helpful in improving it per Wikipedia's standards and policies. The knowledge that an alum would have that is otherwise unverifiable constitutes original research, against which Wikipedia has a policy. The perspective that an alum would have that is otherwise disputable is a biased point of view, against which Wikipedia also has a policy. You are welcome to use Horace Mann's website and publications to correct any errors you find on the page. Castigating me helps no one. --Dystopos 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Great Barrington, are you a Horace Mann alumnus/ae? If so why do you identify yourself as theblacklarl who attended Fordham High School? Please clarify. This may help people understand you point of view in editing this article. Wikster72 06:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Wikster72
Sorry for the confusion. I was pointing out that this is the same user who used to post as Theblacklarl (talk · contribs). David D. (Talk) 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I was afraid of. Wasn't theblacklarl blocked previously, but has recently regained editing rights? I believe that this is a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppet rule? I suggest that we take any edits, or suggestions by GreatBarrington with some doubt and extra scrutiny. Hopefully, he has learned his lesson about innapropriate edits. Wikster72 16:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Tennis

The article stated that the tennis team had won several Mayor's Cup championships. The varsity boys and girls tennis team pages at www.horacemann.org don't list past championships and the Mayor's Cup is an individual singles and doubles event. If a team championship is awarded based on successful individual competitors, then provide a source for the statement. --Dystopos 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I found sources to back up the tennis claim. Its a bit confusing. One of the sources is from the year before the team won its last Mayor's Cup, so it isn't complete but the other source has information regarding the most recent victory. Wikster72 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, these sources don't necessarily have to be indexed by Google. If the results are published in the Times, for example, you could cite the relevant print editions. The librarian or the athletic department may keep a clipping file which would ease the search. --Dystopos 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I figured something at least temporarily was better than nothing. I will look into simpler, more compact, sources. Wikster72 05:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ilario Pantano

I disagree that the notable fact is that he cleared of the murder. There was very little news converage of the outcome of the trials as compared to him being accused in the first place, for example the New York Magazine front page article on him. However, I believe that the current wording is a fair compromise. Wikster72 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Pantano wasn't just accused of murder. He was accused of a number of dishonorable acts, including murder. He wasn't charged with everything he was accused of. And I question the accuracy of saying he was "cleared". The officer in charge of his article 32 hearing -- who was not a lawyer -- recommended dropping the murder charge. He recommended dropping this charge because he found Coburn's testimony inconsistent. But he also recommended that Pantano be held responsible for the body desecration he had already confessed to. In the US military justice system the article who is ordered to convene the article 32 hearing reports back to his or her CO. It is up to their CO to decide whether to convene a full court-martial. The CO, in Pantano's case, chose to ignore those recommendations. And the General in charge of Pantano's division chose to do that, in this case. I think it is deceptive to characterize Pantano as being "cleared". Pantano actually admitted, in his June 2004 statement, to actions which could be considered war crimes.
In addition to murder Pantano was accused of
  1. Using excessive violence in the manner in which he killed his captives, in order to terrorize Iraqi civilians.
  2. Killing his captives, when he wasn't really at risk -- ie murdering them -- in order to terrorize Iraqi civilians.
  3. Mutilating his captive's bodies, in order to terrorize Iraqi civilians.
  4. Posing the mutilated corpses, in order to terrorize Iraqi civilians.
  5. Leaving a sign over the mutilated corpses, in order to terrorize Iraqi civilians.
  6. Leaving his captive's corpses as an example, in order to terrorize Iraqi civilians, rather than calling for body pickup.
  7. Taking trophy photos.
Pantano's culpability for some of these charges is not in any doubt, because he willing admitted to them, both in his statement to military investigators in June 2004, and in the interviews he has given.
    • In his June 2004 statement, he reiterated, over and over again, that the reason for his actions was "to send a message". It was premeditated. In his June 2004 statement he told the military investigators that he had briefed his platoon to use violence "to send a message".
    • Just what did he think he was doing? I was waiting for Lieutenant Pantano to be questioned, under oath. If he really suspected his captives were opponents, who had hidden weapons, or a bomb, in their car, then freeing them from their bonds, and telling them to search their vehicle was a crazy decision.
    • If Pantano really thought the vehicle was booby-trapped then freeing his captives from their bonds, and telling them to search the vehicle, was a breach of both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ, which reguire captors to protect the health of their captives.
    • In his June 2004 statement he told military investigators he "used hand signals" to instruct his captives to search the vehicle. That too is crazy. This would have been far too complex a task to be communicated with hand signals. Pantano's platoon contained a guy who was fluent in Arabic. Why didn't he call for him to come back and instruct the captives?
So far as I am concerned mutilating bodies to terrorize innocent civilians makes Pantano a terrorist. But he wasn't charged with terrorism -- just murder and body desecration. I am not totally unsympathetic to Americans who would like to write that he was "cleared". But, I see it as deceptive. And, IMO, it does not conform to the policy of a neutral point of view. -- Geo Swan 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK then. Take the things he's admitted to and cross reference with actions that are verifiable, indisputable war crimes. Add that information to the Ilario Pantano article and then give me the shortest possible, non-disputed, neutral point of view blurb we can use on this page. We will not hold a trial for Pantano on this page. The fact of being accused of something is not particularly informative. --Dystopos 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dystopos that there will not and should not be a trial on the page for Pantano. It is not deceptive whatsoever to simply say that Pantano was cleared of all charges, which he in fact was. If you say that it is deceptive to say that a person was cleared of charges, because there are so many facts pointing to the opposite then you throw into question every single acquittal,and possibly every single conviction as well, in any court, military or not. The notable facts here are the legal events: that Pantano was accused, and less so that he was later cleared. So, it is not deceptive, nor POV, to simply state that he was accussed and later cleared, as that is what occurred. Wikster72 18:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If we can't agree on how to characterize the charges, then we can either simply list him as a "U.S. Marine", or just list his name without his reason for fame. This article is about a school, not about Pantano. -Will Beback 21:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Fully agree with Will. There is a link to the wikipedia article with great depth. David D. (Talk) 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Merely listing him as a Marine works for me too. Eliminating his entry also works for me. Presenting him as someone who was "cleared of all charges", or who was "falsely accused", does not work for me. In the US military justice system the general who authorizes a hearing can simply choose to ignore its recommendations. He or she is not required to explain why they chose to ignore those recommendations. That is what happened with the recommendations around Pantano's corpse desecration. This is not the same as being "cleared of all charges". -- Geo Swan 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Enlisting in the USMC is not by itself notable. If there is a reason to have him listed on the page, that's not going to be it. --Dystopos 05:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
So, consensus is to remove the entry for Ilario Pantano? If not I continue to object to the assertion that he was "cleared". -- Geo Swan 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he is a notable alumni in the sense that he was in the news. So i think we need to reword it in a way that is objective. Any suggestions? David D. (Talk) 17:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
How about "Controversial U.S. marine who served in Iraq between 20xx-20xx". If people need more they can go to his article. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The Washington Post begins its article about the hearing with: "A Marine officer who killed two Iraqi prisoners should be cleared of dereliction of duty and murder charges that carried a possible death sentence, a formal military probe has concluded." The division commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, did indeed follow the recommendation. I say he was cleared of the charges. Whether he was rightly or wrongly cleared is a matter for editorialists, not encyclopedists. Whether the charges brought accurately portray the nature of Pantano's crimes is a matter for prosecutors, not encyclopedists. Whether criminal law as it is prescribed in the US military is adequate to insure justice is a matter for legislators and the pentagon, not encyclopedists. This is the wrong forum to push a point of view. The fact is he had a military hearing and he was cleared. To talk about accusations and admissions without mentioning that fact is POV. To say he is "controversial" without mentioning the facts is evasive. To say he is "a marine" without mentioning the nature of his notoriety, more-so. I recommend either omitting his name from this list (notoriety need not be synonymous with notability) or using the shortest most neutral statement that adequately conveys the facts. Something like "U. S. Marine accused of capital murder in Iraq, cleared by a military hearing for lack of evidence" --Dystopos 19:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

JSA

I'm not sure if JSA deserves such a large place here. All of my fellow HMers will know that JSA does not have the same prestige at HM that Model UN does. Not going to get into specifics here but we all know the reputation of what happens on JSA trips. I mean seriously...most of the kids who end up in JSA are the ones who couldnt get invited on the Model UN trips....-J (comment left by User:AznNYCer212)

RFC on "elite" in introduction

There is a disagreement about whether characterizing the school as "elite" in the introductory paragraph violates the policy on neutral point of view.

"Elite" is a characterization and does not belong in the introduction

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

  • Without a sanctioning body to determine objectively which schools are "elite" (and in what context), the adjective can only be a characterization. It may be a common view. It may be a view held by rational people. But it is still a point of view. (See above) --Dystopos 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, easy call. As a general rule, descriptive adjectives in an intro sentence are a no-no. - Jersyko·talk 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, if the school is really elite then why would it need to be mentioned? It should be obvious to a casual reader when they read the article. if it needs to be mentioned then one must assume it is not obvious. if it's not obvious then it shouldn't be called elite. So logic says it should not be included. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, the people who should be classified in an "elite" group is a matter of opinion. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 16:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per User:Daycd, the intro mentions high rankings whidh I assume can be verified. Can this RfC be closed yet?--A Y Arktos 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Elite" is a fact and belongs in the introduction

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)


Other positions/Outside views

I dont much like the word "elite" here but surely it is appropriate to give some idea in the intro of the status of this particular school. Thats just explanatory not POV. Otherwise the casual reader like me has to read between the lines. It is surely not POV to find some form of words to distinguish Harvard, Oxford, the Sorbonne, etc from other universities. Why not something here? Jameswilson 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional evidence of HM being elite...

From http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375752080/103-9413957-9216660?v=glance&n=283155

Editorial Reviews Review "College counselors from such elite schools as Dalton, Horace Mann, and Chapin...agree that Leana is one of the best!" --New York magazine


From http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/2001sp/levin.html

In my city, New York, elite private schools such as Dalton, Horace Mann,....

  • These would be additional characterizations of Horace Mann as elite, not evidence. As I said above, HM's status as elite may be a rational view. It may be a widely-shared view, but it is a point of view, and one that, without objective criteria, is disputable and therefore not neutral. --Dystopos 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Look, this garbage is getting old. Just because you can find a few journalists saying that My Big Fat Greek Wedding was a "fun romp" doesn't mean that an encyclopedia is going to introduce the subject as "My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a fun romp". An encyclopedia would put those characterizations into context so that they could be evaluated objectively. --Dystopos 18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the definition. "A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status" So in the case of HM superior to whom? This is subjective. Should wikipedia write that all movie stars are elite, as they have a better economic status than most? Do we say Einstein is an elite scientist, do we say the royal family in Britain are elite? No, no and no. So why are students at HM so desperate to have their school labelled as elite? David D. (Talk) 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a student at HM and I can tell you it is just one of those things that stuck-up Park Avenue kids would like to go to a non-HM affiliated site and see. Or, worse than that, it's something the parents would like. "Oh, I send my child to an elite private school in the Riverdale section of the Bronx," or, "Horace Mann is such an elite school, the teachers are just divine!" It's probably the $29,000+ tuition next year that seems to be the kicker. But I for one am all for NPOV and I will back the "no elite" thing here. Fbv65edel 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fbv---whether or not HM should be listed as elite has nothing to do with where students at HM live. And I hope you weren't intending to give a bad name to Park Avenue, it happens to be the most quiet/peaceful/nice street in Manhattan, assuming we're talking about from 55th-92nd street. Einstien is brilliant, the Windsors are royal, and HM is elite.

  • That's great, but if you were to insert "brilliant" into the first sentence of the Albert Einstein article, you'd be up for the same fight. The House of Windsor is designated a Royal House by objective verifiable criteria, not as a characterization of their actual lordliness. And don't forget to take your petty bickering about other topics off site. --Dystopos 02:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, I love Park Avenue, completely agree with you -- unfortunately it is its elegance that leads parents to believe that they are the most important people in the world. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


First of all, I would ask that you both keep it civil. So far Dystopos, you have referred to contributions of editors to this page as "garbage," and you are not calling our legitamite assertion "petty bickering". This type of language is inappropriate for this particular website. And Daycd, I would ask that you please look over my post again. "Lordliness" isn't a word, and certainly isn't one I used. Also I don't think anyone said that "lording it over others is still a popular past time in New York." Additionally, you have submitted no evidence that this is the case. Maybe you were joking there but it's not entirely clear. But my main comment here is let's discuss this as gentlemen without letting emotion crowd our judgement. - AznNYCer21

Actually I was referencing what Fbv65edel and Dystopos wrote above not anything you had written. I am still interested why you feel 'elite' needs to be in the opening paragraph? Especially since there is a mention in the recognition section. David D. (Talk) 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What I refer to as 'garbage' is the continued adding of content that violates Wikipedia guidelines despite continued explanations of why it is inappropriate. What I refer to as 'petty bickering' are the arguments over how many girls it takes to make a team coed, whether Model UN is more "prestigious" than JSA, and which blocks of Park Avenue are quiet and peaceful. --Dystopos 14:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to spend so much time editing the Horace Mann article, perhaps you might like to learn something about it. Horace Mann is a place where students all across the political, social, economic, and racial spectrums come to learn at one of the finest secondary schools in the country. Conservatives and liberals are expected to be able to discuss contentious issues with each other without being rude or uncivil. I hope the Horace Mann tradition of polite and respectful debate can come to its Wikipedia article. --AznNYCer212

Notability/Recognition

The reason I moved the "recognition" to the introduction is because that is the proper place to establish the position of the school relative to other schools (i.e. to establish notability). There's no reason to cite articles where a journalist refers to HM as "elite" in passing when there are perfectly-good quantifiable and verifiable surveys that bring the reader to the same conclusion without presenting a point of view. That leaves scant need for a "Recognition" section, which on its own seems like it fills a psychological rather than an encyclopedic need. --Dystopos 14:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with cutting the recognition section. It really looks out of place. Since it seems to be HM students that are writing and defending this section one has to wonder why they feel the need? Possibly a psychological boost for self esteem? Who knows, but I agree that the front section looks quite good at the moment. David D. (Talk) 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this view is misguided. Rankings change; they do not belong in the introduction. See university webpages for numerous examples.

Wikipedia can handle change. --Dystopos 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, the wikipedia motto appears to be Be Bold. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tennis in LA Times

There is a disconnect between what has been written in this article and what is presented by the LA Times. According to the article Santa Barbara were 5th not HM.

"The Boys Varsity Tennis team also recently placed 5th in the All-American Invitational Boys Team Tennis Tournament going 3-1 with wins over the Menlo School, the University High School, and the defending champions Santa Barbara High School. Their only loss was to the Torrey Pines High School, the eventual champions in the second round. [7]" Currently in the HM article.
"Santa Barbara, last year's tournament champion, finished fifth after a 5-4 loss to Riverdale (N.Y.) Horace Mann." Quote from LA Times.

Also it is not good practice to use vague terms such as "recently". What does that mean? This year, last ten years? The sentence needs to be more precise: "In 2006, the Boys Varsity Tennis team placed (xth?) in the All-American Invitational Boys Team Tennis Tournament". While we are at it, is this even worth mentioning? How prestigious is this tournament? David D. (Talk) 17:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a very prestigous tournament, the top teams around the country go to compete. The information in the article is incorrect, Horace Mann defeated Santa Barbara for 5th place in the 5th/6th place match, 5-4. The tournament occured on March 24th- March 25th, 2006. Sportsbang 05:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial

Is there any evidence that 10% of graduates go into intelligence services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.153.115 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My last revert

Whoops, sorry guys, the edit summary should read "it doesn't matter if it didn't work." The law is still in effect whether the student body agress with it or not, that's all we should care about. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

But in that case it does not merit special mention in Wikipedia. The GC has passed thousands of bills, including one that mandated urinal dividers, but that does not mean this article should mention all (or any) of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC5 (talk • contribs)

That's fine with me, but I just wanted to remove the part about it not being effective. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 13:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clubs

Clubs are deemed notable or not due to their age, but rather due to whether or not they are involved in notable actions. Holding an annual conference which attracts celebrity businesspeople seems to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in a given page. If you're not going to list HME, you might as well reject the entire HM article. CherryPop 16:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop

Mark Cuban ranks over the whole school? Many schools have notable visitors, especially schools with pupils as well connected as HM. Personally, I do not think that such visits are notable enough to be included in an article on the whole school. certainly they do not make a club more notable. I am interested in how many clubs there are in HM, I am assuming quite a few. Do you think this article would be enhanced by an article about each club? By the way I am not trying to be antagonistic this is a serious question. David D. (Talk) 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Clubs at Horace Mann vary widely, some only last a few weeks and some have long traditions. An article about each club would become extremely bloated and have very little useful information, but some clubs (such as Habitat for Humanity, the GSA, or the Women's Issues club) have lasted for a while and are a stronger presence at the school. Maybe the bigger clubs could have their own article? Kabu 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It does not surprise me that there are other clubs at HM that are more notable. It is for this reason that a clubs inclusion in this article needs to be considered carefully. I would think a general section about the clubs and their impact on the life at the school would be more appropriate than individual entries about each club. Clubs come and go but the school is a constant and the role of the clubs in the schools is a constant. i feel that many authors here are trying to promote their favored clubs and that is POV. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Completely behind David on this one. Separate articles would be a waste of room. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Could CherryPop please explain his edit of eliminating the list of clubs and inserting the Young Entrepreneurs Clubs and then says "Please make sure this meets Wikipedia's notability standards" Obviously he is not. The YEC is NOT notable. It has absolutely no presence at the school, as opposed to the WIC, EWWW, MUN, JSA, G/SA, Record and Review, which all maintain significant prescences at the school. I recommend that CherryPop cease with the POV of constantly reinserting the section on YEC, of which he is obviously a member and look out for the article and its level of quality. That list of clubs was a way to prevent other users from creating an infinite amount of sections on various clubs. Wikipedia is not a place for PR.--Wikster72 03:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered moving "Horace Mann Extracurricular activities" or "Horace Mann Clubs" to a new page? WikiUser901 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)WikiUser901

Look at the pages for Riverdale Country School, Dalton School, and other of HM's peers. No clubs are listed whatsoever. What differentiates Horace Mann from those schools? JudyQ 07:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)JudyQ

  • From an editorial standpoint, I have no issue with including a brief section on organizations at HM. A separate article would be against the consensus on High Schools developing at Wikipedia:Schools. A full list of every organization that ever operated from HM along with long-winded explanations of why each one is more notable than the others would be ridiculous. Think like encyclopedia editors, not like cheerleaders. --Dystopos 13:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of my edits were reverted by CherryPop, who I see is now blocked indefinitely. He or she told me to come to the talk page to discuss notability, but I think that the clubs removed are certainly notable, that needed no consensus. Anyway, I think the page should be reverted (as of now) to last version by me, but I'll wait for an opinion on that. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that a list of clubs as opposed to paragraphs about each club while does make the article more concise still leaves the issue of which clubs are notable open. I support a paragraph that tells about clubs in general, not about each club. Perhaps, we could mention different clubs as examples for the types of clubs that exist at Horace Mann. Below is a possible draft paragraph. This paragraph would replace all other information on clubs at Horace Mann. However, and this is only opinion, for articles dealing with schools, school newspapers and student government are very common in most schools, so I would support retaining the sections on The Record and Student Government
Co-curricular activities are an important part of Horace Mann. There are a wide variety of "clubs" at the school, ranging from publications, such as The Record, the school newspaper, to debate (Model UN and JSA) to activist clubs (Gay/Straight Alliance, Womens' Issues Club) to general interest clubs (Young Entrepeneurs, Anime, French Clubs) and other miccelaneous clubs (Yearbook, Book Day Committee).--Wikster72 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
By creating a list of clubs as opposed to indepth descriptions, you have voided any usefulness of that section of the page. What good is a list of things if you have no idea what they are? Furthermore, if especially noteworthy publications receive their own sections why should especially noteworthy clubs not? If you want to remove the clubs list (which I personally disagree with) I believe you must at least remain consistant and also create a list of publications as opposed to individual descriptions.--SomeStranger 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a student of HM, I want to say that it is true that the Young Entrepreneurs Club is not a presence at the school, nor has it ever been one. Its description may make it sound important, but it is not currently a club, nor has it ever made headlines across the school for doing "great" things. I had never even heard of it up until now -- and if I do say so myself, I know a lot of stuff that goes around the school. It's not pov, but facts that the school has never had a big deal with this club. Just my two cents. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 11:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are these really Notable alumni

the list of famous graduates of Horace Mann is becoming very long and seems to be populated by people who are not particulary notable. How many of the current list below are truely notable?


Jesse L. Greenstein is an alumnus. He discovered the true nature of quasars, measured the magnetic field of the Milky Way galaxy, and Directed the Caltech astronomy program for many years. "I entered a private school, Horace Mann School for Boys, Fieldston near New York, at eleven, graduated at fifteen and entered Harvard at fifteen." http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4642.html He already is listed in Wikipedia.

Writer Jack Kerouac also attended Horace Mann for one year of high school as part of the class of 1940 and played on the football team.

I think we could prune this list down significantly unless there are valid reason to keep they all. David D. (Talk) 16:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It all depends what you mean by notable. All of these alumni meet the standards for notable alumni used on other school pages. So change the entire standard if you want, but don't selectively apply it here. CherryPop 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop
Just becuase other schools are not applying a high standard does not mean that the notability of people on this list should not be questioned. While Murdoch is potentially a famous heir,currently his most notable independant claim to fame appears to be for nepotism. What about Sriram P. Das, class of 1996, Principal of Palm-Star Productions? David D. (Talk) 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay -- if an individual is already notable enough to merit an article -- why shouldn't they be listed here? Alternatively, if they aren't notable enough to merit an article, and the creation of that article doesn't seem imminent, then take that as a sign that they shouldn't be listed as a notable alumni. Their entry could be commented out, rather than removed. -- Geo Swan 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Take Eric Siegel. He has an article, but it looks like a vanity article, the first edit on the article was the first and only edit from Esiegel (talk · contribs). Does that mean he is now notable? Why? Because he attended HM? Or because of one of his jobs? (I just noticed he was nominated for an Emmy Award so he is semi notable, but it still reads like a vanity article and is not really that impressive. He is really a notable alumni? If this is the standard, i am expecting several hundred alumni from HM to be more notable.) David D. (Talk) 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Palm-Star is a legit company that is currently producing a movie with James Van Der Beek and Eliza Dushku (spellings may be wrong). And James Murdoch is the heir apparant to the Murdoch Empire...thats pretty notable... CherryPop 22:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop

  • In principal, I don't take issue with these figures based on notability. "Plastic surgery advocate" and "champion online poker player" is probably pushing it, but congressional seats, academy awards and senior positions at national magazines are certainly notable enough. For practical reasons, I would advise pruning the list and perhaps linking to a more complete tally elsewhere (if one exists). --Dystopos 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
To be clear i am not questioning most of the list, I just pasted them all here for context. Clearly there are some amazing alumni from this school. However, the most notable only should be part of this article lest it becomes dominated by the alumi list. its a question of balance. Certainly a separate list may be the solution if people feel all the above are notable enough.
And yes i still question whether being a Principal of Palm-Star is notable enough to be included. David D. (Talk) 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that many of the people on this list are not all that notable and should be taken off the list until it becomes clear of their notariety. Here is a list of people who I believe can be eliminated. Feel free to comment.--Wikster72 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sriram P. Das, class of 1996, Principal of Palm-Star Productions
  • Brad Green, plastic surgery advocate
  • Eric Siegel, class of 1973 - Executive Vice President of Programs and Planning at the New York Hall of Science
  • Ari Hest, class of 1997 - singer and songwriter


Why not make Wikipedia the judge of whether or not someone is notable? Meaning, if Wikipedia has an article about them, then they are probally notable. if not, they might not be notable enough for inclusion. JudyQ 07:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)JudyQ

Are you notable if you write an article about yourself? Not all vanity goes to AfD, who has the time for that? David D. (Talk) 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Most vanity does go on AfD. It's one of the things the vandal-patrol picks up on very quickly. That said, normally lists of people are more inclusive than the main namespace. When a list is part of another article, such as here, there may be other guidelines more tailored for this article than WP:BIO. --Dystopos 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected and I'm glad someone has the time to patrol for vanity. My only concern is that a very long list of alumni can make an article unbalanced (as with excess info on the clubs). My gut feeling is that notable alumni should be held to a higher standard than WP:BIO. Just becuase other schools do not adhere to such a standard does not mean it should not be the case. For HM I am guessing the notable alumni list could be massive if we really started looking for alumni to add. that is the nature of this school. Take Murdoch, notable for what? He has a famous dad and will inherit the fortune and business. How many others like this at HM? While they may be notable enough to get a bio in wikipedia do you want these notables to dilute out the truely notable? David D. (Talk) 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

i notice that NYC5 (talk · contribs) keeps adding back the borderline notable alumni. I'm not going to get into a revert war here but I would be interested to hear the rationale for keeping these alumni. David D. (Talk) 18:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC) SLY111 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)SLY111, Class '76, 23 DEC 07: FINALLY the vain have been deleted from the list of Notable Alumni. I sugest every alum who has been honored as a "Distinguished Alumnus" be included, and any alum one feels shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence with a "Distinguisged Alumnus" shouldn't be mentioned. I'll be watching.


Jesse L. Greenstein is an alumnus. He discovered the true nature of quasars, measured the magnetic field of the Milky Way galaxy, and Directed the Caltech astronomy program for many years. "I entered a private school, Horace Mann School for Boys, Fieldston near New York, at eleven, graduated at fifteen and entered Harvard at fifteen." http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4642.html He already is listed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertdmc (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Young Entrepreneurs Club

As I said above in the Clubs section, as a student of the school, this club has never been a notable presence, nor could I confirm to you that it ever existed. (It probably did, as I don't think somebody could just make it up, but it certainly no longer is active.) --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 18:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody seems to have added this club back and listed the student who is heading it. I'll email the student to see if it is in existence. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Turns out it's in its productive stages now and will become a full-fledged club next year. I'll leave the decision on whether to keep it up for consensus… --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the club has history and is in its rebuilding stages right now, I see no reason not to leave it on the list. Several of the other clubs are also not the most active.

Original research

Dystopos directed me to WP:V, a policy which I don't entirely agree with. So, technically, since none of the information is published by a source, it should not belong in the article. However, if we didn't publish information that wasn't already published elsewhere, then the article would turn into a stub – after all, how do we know that the sports are played by those divisions (JV, V, MD)? How do we know the school colors are maroon and white? Because they are – it's a fact, it's information which pertains to the subject. So, I think telling how the Student Government, a large presence at the school, is formed, is important information that is true. But by said policy, it can't be included because a reputable source hasn't published it. So is Wikipedia an anthology? I'll leave it for consensus among other editors before we do something about removing it or keeping it. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The policy is sound. The burden of verifiability increases as the content becomes less evident, more qualitative, more unusual or more controversial. The existence of sports teams or clubs is pretty low on the scale. If you were saying that the chapel services were led by a practicing Druid, then the burden of proof would be higher. Most of the things you mentioned, however, are probably just as easy to verify using the school's own website. --Dystopos 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Platypus' latest edits are very good. It was mainly student government that needed its say, but I think the condensing of the rest of the clubs into just a list looks fine. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I have to agree that this article might need some proofreading due to original research. How about we get a peer review? It'd be a great way to strengthen the article. -- Wikipedical 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review would be great. By the way, why was the image changed to the non-official logo from the HM web site? I can get a good photo of the school, if you'd like, but that's not the official design of the school, just what they use on the web page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Why were all the dates made into pipelink dates? -- Wikipedical 12:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

redlinked 'notable' alumni

Alumni who do not have a Wikipedia page should not be included in the notable alumni list. There are thousands of HM alums, and therefore it is only useful to link to those with Wikipedia articles. Please limit this section from redlinks. -- Wikipedical 01:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni standards

Check "Wolf's Head Society" entry's list of "Notables" for suggested format; let us please cease with the typical Horace Manner vanity entries, and do honor to alumni who have affected how "the world" thinks or pplays or works. SLY111````

So far as I can tell nothing on there is a "vanity entry"; that would suggest to me something like, "JOHN SMITH CLASS OF 2008 A REALLY AMAZING STUDENT." However, Horace Mann does have some notable alumni who haven't necessarily affected the world but are notable, by Wikipedia's standards nonetheless (e.g. Peter Cincotti, who you seem to keep removing). If the person has a Wikipedia article (legitimately), then they quite clearly belong on this list. As for how to format the brief bio, I have no strong feeling in that – do it any way you want, but let's come to consensus on it here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Peter Cincotti should stay, he's been on Conan O'Brien, topped the charts in his genre here and abroad, and even my grandmother says she keeps hearing him on the radio. Not my type of music, but he's got a worldwide audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.112.149 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism...

What is with all this vandalism lately... --Catz 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno (may be that school starts tomorrow and people are anxious not to get back), but I requested the page be semi-protected so that takes care of that… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

School Type

Well I stumbled upon this page, and I found that the school type was originally reported as "Independent." If you check the school's website, http://www.horacemann.org, The title reads "Horace Mann School - Private elementary, middle and high school in New York." So after seeing this bit, and looking through the Horace Mann disambiguation page, I determined that this school is private rather than independent. Also I looked for schools within the area and found Fieldston, who is also listed as private. So for the sake of conformity I changed the type. I'm a bit new to wikipedia; if my reasoning is erroneous please correct me. --Willy101 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While the title does read private school, if you look anywhere else on the website, its FAQs for example, it frequently reads 'independent.' -- Wikipedical 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

List of publications

Because the Record and Review have notable information that has been cited, they contribute to the notability of the article as a whole. However, please do not re-add the list of smaller publications unless you can verify reasons of importance and notability. -- Wikipedical 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Andrew Tobias notable?

I recently reverted an edit which removed him, with the edit summary, "Tobias isn't a peer of Caro or Barr or Carter." User:SLY111 has written on my talk page, "Unless the Notable list includes 50 or 50 more worthies, and if HM's Distinguished Alumni Award winners are listed that would be enough, then Tobias isn't worthy of mention. His day is over, and his contribution to media is insignificant." I don't know Tobias too well, so I thought I'd let some others decide. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy...

The mention in the New York Daily news, in and of itself, is completely irrelevant. If Vaniac wishes to discuss every time the school was mentioned in a newspaper, this page would be much much longer. Additionally, incidents that make the gossip column - which was where the school was mentioned, the author of which has since been fired by the NY Daily News - do not belong in a page about the school from an encyclopedic standpoint. Wikster72 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider, too, that incidents that make gossip pages are often blown out of proportion (as this one was). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Forms==>Grades

Back in the '70s, when I was at HM, we followed the traditional British system of prep school Forms. New students starting in 7th grade were called "Firsties" because they were in First Form. Third Form, or 9th grade, was the start of High School, but most of us considered ourselves high school students from the time we started at HM in 7th grade. (I still recall Mr. Wooster hollering at a misbehaving firstie in the halls one day: "You MUST recall that you're in PREP school now," he said with exasperation.) As I recall, the Form system had been in place for many decades. What happened to that system once 6th grade was added to the mix? Is 7th grade still referred to as First Form, or has that changed? Would any of the current HM students even know what I'm talking about? Do they still look forward to being in Sixth Form? Or are they simply seniors, like high school students at any ordinary school? I don't see any discussion or description of this within the article, and if it has changed, it would represent a significant alteration in how both insiders and outsiders perceive the institution. Drgitlow 03:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anything about forms, though technically there is no "high school," but the "Upper Division" (and Middle Division, Lower Division and not elementary school, etc.), which sounds much better. But, yes, sixth–twelfth grades are the terms we use now. If you can find some sort of source for the forms (I'll try looking through some old Records), I suppose it could be mentioned. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You might try looking in Mannikins. I was there from '74 - '80 and recall that the Mannikins (at least some of the ones in that time period) had photos of first form, second form, etc. It would be straight-forward if you have access to all the Mannikins to determine when that ended. It was definitely after 1980, as firsties were still firsties that year. Drgitlow 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that Fieldston still has 1st through 6th form. By the way, there were plenty of terms that went along with this. "Firstie Day" was the day of the first major snowfall, which guaranteed a snowball fight between first and second form students. "Firstie Machines" were rows of second form students lining both sides of the hall in Pforzheimer (before the addition of the Gratwick wing, the halls were quite narrow). First form students would then have to walk down the hall while avoiding the legs of the second form students, who would naturally manipulate their limbs to cause the maximum amount of difficulty and pain. Drgitlow 18:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And now I'm going to correct myself, having just looked over all my Mannikins. Not a single one of mine from '74 forward refers to forms. My dad's (Mannikin 1943) very clearly refers to all the classes as Forms, listing students in each Form, and in fact never refers to grades at all. There appears to have been an insidious transition taking place even while I was there! Nevertheless, many of us referred to our grade level by form, and even this residual prep school tradition has since dissipated. Drgitlow 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
We just had a speaker who is an alum and referred to "2nd form" amidst his speech. But if you say that you were in forms but your Mannikins don't say that, then I suppose it's not helpful to cite those. Haven't had the time yet to go back to some old Records, sorry. I do have a history of HM book though, maybe that's got something. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuition

I was wondering how much tuition is...

Last year tuition was $29,110 ([8]). Financial aid is available ([9]). However, talk pages on Wikipedia (like this) are not the place for answers pertaining to the topic of the article. Try either WP:RD or Google, or, for this specific information, the Horace Mann website. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Academy X

The author of the novel Academy X was a teacher at Horace Mann- a small inter-school controversy surfaced when he was dismissed from his post at the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Is this worth adding to the article? 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the official version of the story was that his contract was not renewed, I'd say not. It might be appropriate for a potential new Academy X article, though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Horrace.jpg

Image:Horrace.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alumni poorly sourced

Checking a few of the linked alumni articles, very few have any supporting verifiable references to show they ever attended Horace Mann School. The guidance of WP:BLP applies and there should be verifiable sources included for any claims about people in this article. I propose that all alumni should have footnotes demonstrating they are alumni even where linked to another Wikipedia article in order to address this problem. Fæ (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I must agree still that the "Notable" alum section is poor though better than say 12 or 18 months ago. This must improve.SLY111 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)SLY111

It may be worth considering moving the list out to its own article, a good example of this is List of Brigham Young University alumni. Such an article could expand on the sources available (such as alumni newsletters, websites etc.). Fæ (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A plus for ARROGANCE

Editors and mature contributors to this entry must stand ready forever to remove text that hails too heartily this excellent school. As an alumnus, I know the arrogance that animates parts of the local and greater Horace Mann School communities. Readers in Reading, you pick the state among our United States want facts rather than fluff or poppycock. The facts are good enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SLY111 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent New York Times Magazine article

I'm interested in getting some thoughts about how to incorporate this recent piece from the New York Times Magazine:

  • Kamil, Amos (June 6, 2012). "Prep-School Predators: The Horace Mann School's Secret History of Sexual Abuse". New York Times Magazine.

Anyone? MastCell Talk 18:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be included somehow. It doesn't have to be stated as fact - without additional sources supporting it, that wouldn't be a good idea - but we could say something like 'In 2012, a New York Times article described allegations of a history of sexual abuse at Horace Mann'. Robofish (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The article by Amos Kamil tells us more about what really went on at HM than any other single piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.68.54 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

While probably significant enough to include, there seems to be a lot of ink here for information that would otherwise be a sentence or two (if even included) in the pages of most American high schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.187.2 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additions to allegations of abuse section

Please do not include information about upcoming protests (which has been removed three times), as Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business, nor a directory for upcoming events, articles mustn't take sides, and articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views, without reliable sources. This article is about the 100+ year old school, not this scandal. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


LATEST EFFORT INCORPORATING YOUR SUGGESTIONS: please review & comment.

In response to the perceived inaction of the Horace Mann School administration and Board of Trustees and as an offshoot of the Processing Horace Mann group on Facebook, in June 2012 several alumni formed the Horace Mann Action Coalition (HMAC).[2] [3] The HMAC was created specifically to support the survivors of sexual abuse at Horace Mann and to pursue the goals and needs of those survivors. The group organized 'from the ground up', across continents and time zones and at its inception consisted of doctors, lawyers, business people, junk mail copy writers, authors, therapists and grassroots activists all of whom are alumni of the Horace Mann School. The group is in the process of becoming a formal nonprofit and is actively seeking :

1- an apology from the school to the survivors, 2- an independent investigation similar to the one so adeptly conducted by Louis Freeh at Penn State, 3- compensation for the survivors to address the need for appropriate therapy, counseling and healing 4- transparency and honesty in the process and workings of the Horace Mann School Board of Trustees 5- Increased awareness and prevention of the scourage of child sexual abuse. [4]

Additionally, the Action Coalition sponsors protests and activities in an effort the encourage the school to address the needs of the surivivors of abuse. The group has an active 'professional resource committee' that has helped facilitate low-cost high-quality therapy and mental health care for those survivors most in need. The HMAC is a dedicated and committed group of concerned alumni who hope to restore trust, compassion and honor to their alma mater, Horace Mann School in Riverdale, New York

--Nina626 (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the use of the {{help}} was inappropriate for this. If you'd like to discuss changes to the article, you may propose them on this page. However, editing Wikipedia representing an organization is frowned upon, and will likely result in a block. Please read this page for more information. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 07:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

re-edit of the change

PROPOSED RE-RE-RE EDIT TO THE HORACE MANN SCHOOL ENTRY I have tried to incorporate all fo the suggestions of the past few days. I really do not know if I am even putting this in the proper location here. I appreciate your help.

In response to the perceived inaction of the Horace Mann School administration and Board of Trustees and as an offshoot of the Processing Horace Mann group on Facebook, in June 2012 several alumni formed the Horace Mann Action Coalition (HMAC).[5] [6] The HMAC was created by alumni from many walks of life specifically to support the survivors of sexual abuse at Horace Mann and to pursue the goals and needs of those survivors. The group is in the process of becoming a formal nonprofit. HMAC is actively seeking an apology from the school to the survivors, an independent investigation similar to the one so adeptly conducted by Louis Freeh at Penn State, compensation for the survivors to address the need for appropriate therapy, counseling and healing and increased awareness and prevention of the scourage of child sexual abuse. [7] The Action Coalition is sponsoring protests and activities in an effort the encourage the school to address the needs of the surivivors of abuse. The HMAC is a dedicated and committed group of concerned alumni who hope to restore trust, compassion and honor to their alma mater, Horace Mann School in Riverdale, New York.

--Nina626 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)--Nina626 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC) (moved from User talk:Mdann52). Mdann52 (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.
Thus, words like "survivor," "adeptly," "appropriate," and "scourge" are not neutral. The tone and purpose of including information about this council should not be to actively recruit anyone but to report something notable backed by significant coverage in reliable sources. Since this article is about the school and not about the abuse, I would suggest keeping this mention as clear and condensed as possible, limiting it to maybe a sentence or two, if necessary. I would also wait until it has done anything, since the creation of a committee is not itself notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse section

I have removed the summary of a Forbes opinion piece, which has been inserted by User:Swliv. It does not seem particularly notable to this section, as there have been dozens of articles about the abuse allegations. Since this article is about the school itself and not the the abuse allegations, the section should remain a brief summary of major events. Citing the opinions of arbitrary experts should be avoided here. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You complained the Mann part of the Gina Simmons piece was not explicitly included, so I added examples. Then you said it was too long and removed my whole contribution again. And, in the process, you responded to my Edit summary proposal for talk by removing my second still-well-sourced contribution and counter-proposing talk to me. So I can't say much for your process. You did drop one component of your objection from "completely irrelevant" to "does not seem relevant", between the two deletions. But, given your peremptory removals on subjective bases, the veneer of civil reasoning and interaction comes to seem pretty thin.
That said and trying to move toward reasoning and interaction: You're still separating the "abuse" from "the school" and its "history". Yes, and addressing your brevity interest also, a free-standing article could be established. That's certainly the way the Penn State and the Catholic Church articles (many times) went in Wikipedia. Those last are two institutional parallels which Simmons explicitly drew in her piece, not surprisingly, to Mann. To my mind, though, we haven't reached the point of a separate article yet, with Mann.
You say you "don't see why simmons' opinion is particularly notable". It's her specific area of professional expertise. She's addressing Mann explicitly. And it's in Forbes, well-cited elsewhere in the Mann article when the magazine has reported good news. What's not notable?
Are you objecting to the idea that someone's opinion, per se, on the issue would be included? Opinion from a recognized authority is allowed, clearly, in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Sources#Newspaper and magazine blogs. It's part of how events and actions are presented and understood.
Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
With no response to mine above here, I've restored with minor editing my expanded GSimmons bit. I'm still open to discussion but hope it occurs before unilateral removal of well-sourced material. Swliv (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, I have removed this Forbes paragraph. Rather than summarizing events, it presents an original claim that clearly fails WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter how well-sourced the woman's quotations are. Their inclusion fails policy as her viewpoint is clearly not neutral. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems no thought of arriving at consensus here, just warring away on a single-minded cleansing mission with sometimes dramatically changing policy citations time to time. In fact, the three-revert rule could have been broken here, but for the 24-hour rule component, despite my best efforts to respond to a request to talk above (after being snubbed on my request for talk if needed (in the edit summary)) and to engage rather than war: WP:EW. Meanwhile it's NPOV this round, with "length" thrown in in the edit summary, while my discussion above has been ignored. Is "second best prep school in country"+- just an obvious fact, not opinion? I have to ask, to be a little more pointed vis a vis my Forbes point of the 27th above. I expect I will be reporting this as, effectively, edit-warring. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Alumni

The list is far too long. It should now be split into a separate article, leaving a prose section that contains just a few of the most notable alumni. This will also force the issue of requiring sourced proof that they attended the school. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Horace Mann 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) 00:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horace Mann 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) 18:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Horace Mann 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) 03:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Article by Felicia R. Lee 'Chatty Host Who Makes Archaeology Glamorous' February 6, 2006
  2. ^ [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444246904577573704169774974.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLETopStories}
  3. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/nyregion/horace-mann-school-details-steps-to-handle-sexual-abuse-reports.html?ref=nyregion
  4. ^ http://hmactioncoalition.businesscatalyst.com/index.html
  5. ^ [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444246904577573704169774974.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLETopStories}
  6. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/nyregion/horace-mann-school-details-steps-to-handle-sexual-abuse-reports.html?ref=nyregion
  7. ^ http://hmactioncoalition.businesscatalyst.com/index.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horace_Mann_School/Archive_1&oldid=1238378859"