Talk:Malibu High School

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

School Established

I thought malibu high was established in 1992. Sam 05:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the 1976 date could be. Malibu Park was opened before that, but the high came later. Let's put 1992 while we're figuring this out. -Will Beback 08:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first graduating class was 1996 (which makes 1992 as a founding date conceivable). Furthermore, this is proved by this PDF malibuhigh.smmusd.org/PDF/MHSDSA.pdf that states that MHS was established in 1992. -hmilne —Preceding comment was added at 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box

The MHS info box contains valid information (assistant principals, accreditation, national rank, etc.) and should be kept as is. There is no reason to delete the contributions. I checked other high school pages on Wikipedia and they also have the same info!Marshmallow00 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked many respected high schools on wiki, especially those in California of a similar academic caliber, demographic or socio-economic background. Rarely were asst principals listed. A new high school or private school needs accreditation, especially when it is trying to achieve a state designation, such as "Distinguished School." MHS has been an accredited school for several years. The California Distinguished School designation is an honor that requires accreditation. Since CDS is noted in the body of text, the reference to MHS's accreditation is superfluous. Sonial1t6 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should avoid mentioning the entire administration. The principal is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Malibu" name origin, Colin McEwen HS, Location

The etymology of the name Malibu is already mentioned in the City of Malibu article. Malibu High School is obviously named after its location...

And mentioning Colin McEwen High School isn't really necessary. Neither is the location of MHS since it's already in the infobox. Marshmallow00 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone will click on Malibu, California to read the derivation of the name.

Colin McEwen High School should be noted as the only other secondary school, albeit private, in Malibu, as it is not mentioned elsewhere in wikipedia. The location is necessary in the text as the info box does not show it. Additionally, the info box appears more elegant & less cluttered by leaving out the specific address. Sonial1t6 01:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about "elegance". The address is just information. You can make the same argument for all the other info in the info box. Marshmallow00 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the infobox should be less busy and not include info already discussed in the text.

Too repetitive.

Anautumnofwar 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of adding your miniscule tidbits, how about adding substantive info? Sonial1t6 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, might as well delete the entire infobox to avoid being "repetitive". (Sarcasm). [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]

...Obviously everyone else is too "repetitive". (Sarcasm again). If you haven't noticed, info. is listed in an info. box for convenience. Whether or not it is already mentioned in the article is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallow00 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you used wiki BHS as an example, as its infobox more closely resembles my version than yours. Also, Harvard-Westlake doesn't include its street address either, which you think important. Are you able to contribute in a meaningful, pithy way? You piddle with nugatory matters like superscript, adding superfluous info like assistant principals & the street address in the infobox. Sonial1t6 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of reputable high schools (e.g.[5] , [6], [7], etc.) use their street address. Why are you so hell-bent on creating the MHS article your way? How are you associated with the school anyways (administrator, student, etc...)? Marshmallow00 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of three private schools, Oaks Christian, Crespi, & Dwight, are puzzling. Private schools NEED the advertising to expand enrollment, so of course they include their street addresses. A review of comparable Southern California public high schools (including but not limited to [8],[9], [10]) indicates that street addresses are not commonly included in the infobox. Sonial1t6 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising so I am unsympathetic for those who "need" to advertise. A mailing address is unnecessary in an encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 18:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, do you REALLY think parents find private schools on Wikipedia and that private schools "advertise" through Wiki? Marshmallow00 22:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I know 2 parents at a nearby private school who update their schools' wiki site. Some schools are always trolling for new enrollees, whether at a soccer or water polo game or at Starbucks. I know parents who try to get as much info, breadth & depth, about prospective schools, even joining the different schools' online community forums & attending games & mixers to get a picture of concerns at the school & hear the latest school gossip. Some leave expensive, private schools to attend MHS. Parents of freshmen(!) read collegedirt.com when their kids are years away from high school graduation. Sonial1t6 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Info

Under "campus life" the article says: "Unlike its sister school Santa Monica High, MHS experiences little if any unrest. Its last student fight occurred in 2004, when two boys were in a personal, physical dispute..."

This is irrelevant information (the specific fight in 2004). The last brawl actually occurred in 2007, not 2004 anyways.

There were fights prior to 2007. It's also not relevant period.

No brawl or fight was reported or evidenced in 2007 at MHS, either last spring or this fall.

Where did you get your info?

Sonial1t6 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a duel between two boys in the new gymnasium in June of 2007 during a P.E. class. An MHS student I know viewed the fight. Obviously, info. about fights cannot be cited and confirmed and is therefore irrelevant to the article. Marshmallow00 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under "pubications": "A yearbook class also publishes the high school yearbook, Aquarius, named so because of the zodiac sign's association with water (in reference to Malibu as a "water" or beach community). The PTSA also publishes the MHS Directory (students, parents, and faculty), the MHS Guide, and the middle school yearbook."

There are no citations for the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallow00 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will search for citations, but this is insider info. Also, it's odd that you would call into

question your own addition to the Publications section. I thought it irrelevant, but

decided not to quibble.

Sonial1t6 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got this info about the Aquarius yearbook from you, so I don't know if it's valid. Where do you get all the "insider info" for this article from? Marshmallow00 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insider info that isn't verifiable by outsiders doesn't belong in Wikipedia. See WP:V. Unfortunately, that often means that interesting and relevant things that happen on campus are off limits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if I get & upload pics of the pranks & the shark fins?

Sonial1t6 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those would confirm their existence, but not the details of the pranks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it might be original research to me, depending on whether the photos have been published. --ElKevbo 04:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be original research to take the photo (otherwise every photo is OR). The OR would come in extrapolating from the photo. I think it would be reasonable to have a photo of the fins and a caption saying they came from a prank. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I also think that would firmly violate WP:RS, too. This is not Wikinews; we do not produce or use our own original research here or self-generated primary documents. --ElKevbo 04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to a photo with a caption that says these are concrete shark fins? How would that differ from any other photo on WP? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't object to that but I can't grasp the utility of such a photo. --ElKevbo 21:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The utulity would be to illustrate the article with photos of interesting things on the campus. Most schools, to my knowledge, do not have concrete shark fins on the lawn. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if someone just wants to throw some pics of the campus into the article that should be uncontroversial. I don't know how we're moved into discussing this in a section that originally began discussing campus unrest and then moved on to unreferenced claims concerning the yearbook. Please start new sections when changing discussion topics. --ElKevbo 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can figure out when the topic changed feel free to insert a section heading. In many discussions the topic evolves without any intention of changing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Problems

I have a few problems with this article.

1. Point of view. At various points, it is clear that someone is advancing their point of view, as in the Schedule section ("The school follows the antediluvian daily 6-period schedule, with a shortened day for students once a week ostensibly to enable the faculty...") (emphasis added) and ("The current schedule has proven marginally workable) (emphasis added). Ostensibly to enable the faculty? You mean they don't use this time?

removed Sonial1t6 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Unproven statements, such as the last paragraph under the Schedule section ("Annual calls by educators teaching Advanced Placement courses..."). Where is the proof that educators at MHS educators annually call for this?

removed Sonial1t6 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Incorrect "facts." It was not the Class of 2003 who put the Volkswagen Bug in the flagpole, but the Class of 2001. Additionally, the shark fins in the grass had absolutely nothing to do with the prank. They were installed with funds provided by the middle school ASB at a separate time.

--Hike Leader 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corrected. You're free to correct mis-stated info, please. Sonial1t6 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be better to remove unverifiable facts, rather than replacing one person's recollection with another's. Since an archive of the school paper isn't available, are any of these events covered in the local Malibu paper? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 local papers. Neither covered the school pranks. It looks like the pranks were deleted.Soybutter 04:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523055934/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/18757087/?sort=Rank&count=1257&search=&start=100&limit=100&year=2007& to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18757087/?sort=Rank&count=1257&Search=&start=100&limit=100&year=2007&

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Malibu High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]