Talk:Loyola Academy/Archive 1

There are WAYYYY too many "famous" people on this... Billy Gordon does not qualify as famous OR notable.. nor do college athletes. When they make the pros, you are then notable or famous.

Other famous Alumni?

Would it be a good idea to add the graduation year (or year last attended) to the famous alumni? Colleges have this as do some high schools. I can at least add a few if folks think this is a good addition. Comments?

That would be great! Zagalejo 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but the word 'famous' should not be associate with most of the people on this list. As such, it has been appropriately renamed to "notable." Perhaps there should be a different list for the 'famous' with Bill Murray and Chris O'Donnel; but many of the others are just notable.

When I was a student at Loyola Academy, I was told by several people that "the guy who wrote Memento" (presumably Christopher Nolan) went to school there. Nolan did live in the Chicago area when he was a child, but I haven't been able to confirm that he actually attended LA. Does anyone know if this rumor is true?

I've also heard that "the guy who created Mortal Kombat" (not sure who that is supposed to be) went to Loyola. Any truth to that one? Zagalejo

N/M first question - Nolan's brother, Jonathan, went to LA. He graduated in 1994, and his short story "Memento mori" inspired the movie that his brother directed. Zagalejo 22:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Loyola '04 here. John Tobias and Ed Boon did indeed attend LA; German teacher Frau Smejkal accually had them in her class, and told us about them once.

Who is "Billy Gordon"? There has to be some line where we can draw who is famous and who is not.

Also, who the heck is "Oladipo Folami"? The only mention of him that I can find anywhere on the internet is at This Google Cache. What I find here seems hardly enough material to count him among famous alumni. mlaird1 20:38, 1 October, 2005 (UTC)

Billy Gordon and Oladipo Folami were in the class of 2001, according to my yearbooks. I don't know if they've done anything famous yet... 12.73.220.115 00:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mr. Riley, Eddie Shin of That '80s Show went to Loyola Academy, too. So, I've added him to the list.Zagalejo 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shin did graduate from Loyola, he's still friends with Mr. Chang of the Religious studies dept. mlaird1 17:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Petersen

According to this site, Petersen actually graduated from Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho. He left Illinois when he was about 15. Zagalejo 15:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Anyone have a source on those baseball players? It doesn't say anything about them on their pages, I'm assuming they got here from the LA Athletic Hall of Fame. A source should probably be posted at the bottom of the page. -mlaird1 20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're both listed here: http://www.goramblers.org/HallofFame/home.asp. I'll add that link to the article. Zagalejo 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article

We need to talk about antisemitic past of the school —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.24.68 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well.... I've thought about mentioning the New Trier basketball game incident. The newspaper articles do exist for verification. However, I'd just feel uncomfortable writing that part. If someone else wants to do it, and uses reliable sources and neutral, encyclopedic language, I wouldn't stop them. But, for various reasons, I don't want to be personally responsible for introducing that into the article.

It is kind of excessive to say that the school has an "antisemitic past." One chant by a few morons at a basketball game should not implicate the entire student body. There are a few idiots at every school. We should weigh the basketball incident against all of the good Loyola students have done through Life Be in It, Summer Service, etc. Zagalejo 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Chicagoland

I saw this while on RC Patrol. Chicagoland was just re-introduced. It has a valid wikilink and should remain IMHO if this academy is within its descripted area. Morenooso 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who has made this change has been doing so all over wiki (see contribs). He has some kind of grudge against the word "chicagoland." Uber lame.

"The guy" (me) feels that Chicagoland is unencyclopedic. Its boundaries are poorly defined, and people use it when they cannot be bothered to do a little research to find out where something is located. It is also a term that is disliked by natives of the city because it is overused in commercial speech. I sign my posts. Speciate 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City natives do not dislike the term. Signing my posts has nothing to do with anything.

Mention the racism controversy?

This article should be erased or revised, it is politically slanted, does not include proper citations, and has outdated information. That is why I erased it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.135.45 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of more recent (published) information, please tell us where to find it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - allegations of racism

Fixed RFCxxx template - created suitable section head and set section parameter in template to match. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some dispute over whether the article should mention the following story: [1], [2]. (In short: The family of a black student charged the school with racism after he was expelled for sharing a topless photograph of a white female classmate. Loyola and an attorney for the girl's family have denied that racism was involved, although their comments in the press regarding the expulsion have been relatively limited.)

First, is this story even notable enough for inclusion? And second, is it possible, at this point, to provide a balanced description of the controversy? Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would qualify as a "current event". Including this information would require keeping up with the story and getting more than a single source - in particular, try to find more information about the dispute about whether or not the photograph was consentual. As for the notability aspect, using just a single paper is a bit on the weak side. --Sigma 7 05:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, based on the number of external links to third-party sites, I doubt notability of the event may be an issue. I still recommend finding a third paper, though. --Sigma 7 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said to this shmoe over and over that I plan on keeping it current, and I'd be happy to add more sources. So eat it, Zagalejo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.5.60 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your edits don't even take into account what is currently known! You never even mention the topless photgraph, and you still don't seem to understand why the girls' family dropped the police complaint. Whatever happens with this article, your description of the controversy is plainly unacceptable.

As a compromise, I'll try to rewrite the entire section with all the sources that are available. I'm not sure how well it's going to look, since there are still lots of vague statements in the press that haven't been elaborated, but hopefully, it'll be better than what's there now.

And lay off the name-calling please. It doesn't help your case. Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think me calling you a shmoe makes it any less important that people know this stuff happened rather than just completely ignoring it because we don't have ALL the information. Unless you go and talk to the school admin and the girl yourself, you'll never have all the information. YOU dont seem to understand that the section I started wasn't to outline what actually happened, but to describe the public outcry over what many people viewed as blantant racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.5.60 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand how things work around here. Far more innocuous details have been challenged in the past. (Browse through Talk:Baby 81 incident, for example.) Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and is not supposed to cause undue harm. With a touchy issue like this, I still think it's best to wait until things have played out before adding it to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to keep it as neutral as I could, and encouraged you a number of times to make any changes you saw fit if I wasn't speaking in a neutral enough tone. Also, how does reporting on what has already been exposed and reported on causing any undue harm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.5.60 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, again, we don't know the whole story yet. Regardless of what the newspapers do, we should try to take the high road and wait until we are sure we can describe the incident as completely and truthfully as we can. Besides, Wikipedia has much more potential influence than a newspaper article can have. Those articles will soon be locked behind paywalls, but Wikipedia will be accessible to everyone for years to come.

I'm not really that concerned about the reputation of the school. If there is clear evidence that their decision was racially motivated, then fine, include it in the article. However, what if the girl was indeed the victim of sexual abuse? Don't you think she would be distressed to see that we were giving so much attention to the racism debate? Zagalejo^^^ 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the unsigned business? Speciate 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the Controversy section reads reasonably well now. I'm sure there will be more developments soon. Speciate 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... has anyone heard any updates? Zagalejo^^^ 06:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to keep any eye out for any more info, but have not seen anything beyond what the article already contains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.61.123 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates?

I still haven't seen any updates about the racism controversy. Does anyone know what's going on? Zagalejo^^^ 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]