Talk:Newmarket High School

All users feel free to contribute to Newmarket High School's article on this page!

Debate vs squash

JaysCyYoung, please don't delete existing comments on a talk page - especially when those comments are an attempt to engage in a discussion about what content is appropriate to an entry. I'm just an NHS alumni who's trying to make sure the article has the appropriate content - if you disagree, just tell me where I'm wrong so we can discuss it. Thanks Rycanada 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I created the original page and expanded it when I wasn't even a registered user. I am an alumini from the Class of 2005 and spent all four of my high school years at the school. With all due respect, I think I have a significantly greater understanding about the latest incarnation of the school than you do. If you are University of Waterloo alumini, then chances are you didn't even attend the new school, so please stop vandalizing the page unless you have something worthy to contribute. Also, why are you bringing a Wikipedia user from AUSTRALIA into this!? I'm not trying to be arrogant or difficult, I do not vandalize Wikipedia articles and am a consistent contributor. However, it is quite perplexing.

Jameson 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I honestly didn't make any of these edits thinking they'd anger anyone. I did attend the school at the new building, although I spent grade 9 at the (awesome, but tiny) old building. I know a lot of people who have graduated since, as well as current students (the younger siblings of my class of 2000). The user from Australia (Drat) came in on his own; he apparently surfed in from the machinima side of things, but still thought the link looked like a vanity reference. That's why I got him into the discussion; I thought that he'd be a neutral third party with regards to the school.

I still stand by my edit; from the information on your talk page, it seems pretty likely that you're Jameson Holman from the OTCS team, which if true, really supports the depiction as a vanity reference. I certainly wasn't trying to vandalize, and I hope my grammar edits, moves to neutral language, and small additions show that. One other related point I'd like to make, though, is that deleting talk content for unresolved issues isn't so hot. Even in really bitter disputes (take a look at the Ayn Rand talk page for an example), it's considered bad witiquette. The main thing is, I respect your opinion, and looking at your user history I think you've made a lot of good edits even over the last few days. I'm honestly not trying to piss you off. Rycanada 05:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is at least a reasonable explanation and it is greatly appreciated. I like to think that we can at least act civilized. One of the greatest things about Wikipedia is its ability so facilitate the spread of information and foster a greater level of cooperation amongst various borders. I did delete the talk page a couple of times, but it was done out of emotion moreso than rational argument. The page was deleted a couple of times by an unknown user after that for whatever reason. That confused me a little.

Anyways, you seem like a good, if not persistant guy and it's great to always meet fellow NHS graduates. Cheers!

Edit - I think that OTCS should be included in the NHS article because it is something that emerged from the school and was a group that became well known there in late 2004. People obviously wouldn't know the school because of a machinima group, and I agree with you there, RyCanada. However, I do think that it is something that should be included in the clubs area, which is why I also added the Amnesty International, and Youth Alive blurbs to boot. Also, the last edit I did wasn't intended to delete this discussion page, so sorry about the last change guys.

Jameson 06:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Multiple editors removals of OTCS references

OK, both I and Drat have shown reasons the machinima group shouldn't be included in this article. I'm not saying that Over the Counter Strike isn't well-known in machinima circles, just that people don't know Newmarket High School as a result of that, and it's not relevant enough to the school to merit specific mention in such a small article. I really think it's a vanity reference, and if you disagree, please put some reasons here so we can discuss it. Rycanada 21:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, if verifiable sources can be shown proving that it is well known around town, then, by all means. I'd write more, but I gotta dash.--Drat (Talk) 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm from the town, recent grad of the same high school, and I'm highly interested in machinima. I had never heard of it. Rycanada 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

JaysCyYoung, please do not remove talk page discussions until they have been resolved. I'm going to assume you did that by accident. What I want to see are independantly verifiable, reliable sources that show that OTCS/Big Push are famous residents of Newmarket. Below are some Google searches to support my removal of their listing from the Newmarket article. Keep in mind, the numbers may not be exact. The numbers can vary a little between repeated searches of the exact same terms. The passage of time is also a factor.

• Search for Newmarket and the string "Over the Counter-Strike" - 1900 hits (+/- 10)
• The same, but filtering out hits from bigpushproductions.com - 2-3 hits
• The strings "Over the Counter-Strike" and "Newmarket High School" - 8 hits
• Again, filtering out Big Push site - 4 hits

I am thinking about removing them from the high school article, but I want to get some proper sleep under my belt before I decide one way or the other. That bit has been pretty much NPOV'ed, and doesn't seem to be so promotional now. I'll probably leave it as it is.--Drat (Talk) 11:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with leaving it, now that its NPOV, although it'd be nice to get some kind of list of "notable alumni" up too. I think that would add some more balance, but I don't know of such alumni that have substantial articles as yet. Rycanada 18:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, it WAS a bit of a vanity reference put up by the group to help popularize the series some more, and it did begin at the school. However, now that it is just an informative blurb and isn't overtly biased (displaying a neutral point of view) I think that it would benefit the article for it to stay. I expanded the Student Groups sections once again, mentioning some of Youth Alive's contributions and the music program's success over the past couple of years. I'll do some more edits and a famous alummini page is a great idea, guys! Off the top of my head we have at least Peter Orr and Belinda.

JaysCyYoung 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So you admit it was to help popularise it. This goes back to what I said before about sources. "Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of first instance. It isn't here to promote new things and spread new knowledge; it's here to collect, condense, and summarize what has already been promoted - and what has passed certain tests. Most encyclopedias are written this way. If you find yourself arguing that your Wikipedia article is necessary because no one else has written about your new invention yet, you're breaking the original research rule."--Drat (Talk) 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelisi and JaysCyYoung

User:Serie left a message on the Help desk asking if he needed permission to edit articles, after you two reverted edits on the article and talk space that you deemed to be "pointless." I found the article edit to be legitimate and the concerns raised on the talk page to also be valid. Please practice good faith in the future and address concerns instead of wiping them out. Mike H. That's hot 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting. Bloody disgusting. Do not bite the newbies. You do not own this, or any other page on this wiki. Rob Church (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vague statements

There are a number of vague statements in the article. I'd like to see concrete sources or values for them, or they should be removed.

• "generally perform well in Boys' and Girls' Football and Baseball." What does "generally perform well" mean, and who's saying it?
• "has an arts and music program which is well regarded" Well regarded by who?
• "as well as an active and prominent student council." What does this mean? Most student councils could be described as "active and prominent".
• "has raised student awareness about the importance of issues such as human rights" Where's the source of this statement?
• "have improved the quality of life in the school and the surrounding area by encouraging student participation in volunteer efforts and other worthy causes" Who determines what a "worthy cause" is? How does this improve the quality of life in the school?

-Serie 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be pared down

I don't think most of the student groups matter at all, and I already deleted stuff like a list of staff members, including the name of the secretary. That's simply not encyclopedic and it's impossible to maintain, anyway. High school sports generally don't matter and unless you're regularly having people graduate to the NBA, NFL, or whatever, they can be cut. --Cyde Weys 03:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

Newmarket High School boasts one of the finest arts and music programs in York Region as well as an excellent athletic program and an active and prominent student council.

Statements such as this need to be sourced or attributed or removed alltogether. — orioneight (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would statements such as that be removed? For years it has been acknowledged that Huron Heights Secondary School and NHS have been the leading high schools in the YRDSB when it comes to Arts Programs as well as Music. They simply get more funding and generally attract the best students in these areas. That is a verifiable fact.

JaysCyYoung 17:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it must either be attributed or removed. Even in your response you have used weasel wording ("it has been acknowledged"). Statements such as "one of the finest" and "excellent" and "active and prominent" cannot stand on their own without references. — orioneight (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jaydawg 22:30, 7 March 2006 (EST)

I was treasurer of NHS Student Council in the academic year of 2004/05. We were constantly doing and planning fundraisers and activities such as dances, semi-formal, raising money for Tsunami Relief. I believe it is insulting to the council as well as our athletes to remove those statements.

Wikipedia runs on sourcing statements. They can't stay if there isn't anything to back them up with. Being treasurer and thinking your student council is great, sorry to say, falls under original research. Mike H. That's hot 05:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mike, he's not lying. We both graduated last year, and the council was recognized for the excellent job they did. This is just needless nitpicking on your part, at least from my standpoint. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on here that employ similar language. I just had to edit out a political article calling the Enterprise Institute a Neo-Conservative fascist entity, or something along those lines.

I gave factual data and I can be backed up by the cheque book, the supervising teachers, and the committee. This information is correct and not doctored in any fashion. Further more, if I can add, I did not mention that the council was great. I was supporting the fact that the statement "an active and prominent student council." is a correct evaluation. (whether or not I was not on council). Jaydawg13:26 8 March (EST)

JaysCyYoung 16:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It needs to be verified by published outside sources. Did a television station or a newspaper say the student council was great? Your personal work (if you did have any) on the student council constitutes original research, and isn't allowed. Mike H. That's hot 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are the citations? I want links to verifying web sites, references to the media or printed works stating this. Otherwise it's original research. A cheque book and a bunch of people affiliated with the school aren't sufficient sources for Wikipedia purposes. Rob Church (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Staff not relevant?!

How can you claim that staff is not relevant to a school? What would the school be without them? This deletion is utterly mindless and does not improve the article. You have also deleted the only current picture of the school that anyone has posted, which in itself shows that little thought is going into these edits.

The idea here is to expand articles, not to pare them down as one user is suggesting. Useful edits would include more information about student activities (other than sports – I think that's already well covered), the number of Ontario Scholars (there was already a huge number when I was there; it must be quite a bit bigger now), an addition to the History section about students' participation in the Second World War (do they still have the big framed list of participants on display? If not, ask Mr. Faber about it). Mention something about the school newspaper if there is one. Does the school still participate in math contests (silly question — of course, right?) or the Ontario High School German Contest? Can anyone think of any more prominent alumni? Actually, I can: this guy. Yes, it's true. Although it doesn't say so at that site, he did go to NHS. I remember him. See if you can get a hold of the 1980 or 1981 Phoenix (the yearbook — that's another thing that you might mention); you'll see him there. The face is the same, but the hair and clothing are different (get set for a chuckle; they're very different; he's done it somewhat back-to-front if you ask me). Can anyone come up with some more photos? Current photos would be good, but I happen to know that photos of the school's second and third incarnations (but not the first, I don't think) exist; I've seen them. See if you can find them, and if they are not covered by copyright, scan and upload them.

Anyway, the upshot is that I'm restoring the staff list and the current photo. The staff is very pertinent to the school. Kelisi 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Kelisi on this one. One of the disturbing trends that I have witnessed on Wikipedia has been the propensity of users to actually REDUCE article sizes and chop out pertinent information. This is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia and information database. By reducing article sizes and taking out relevant information about the topic itself, you are no longer facilitating the spread of knowledge or shared interests and it goes against the very principles of Wikipedia itself. Why would someone take out pictureso of the school or the staff and administration? That just seems inane to me.

JaysCyYoung 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Cyde is right. Please read Wikipedia:Schools, in particular, this passage:

It is not a good idea to list the name of all the teachers at a school. If you want to list the name of the principal, that will generally withstand the editing process, but a complete list of teachers and what subjects they teach will generally be deleted out of privacy and vanity concerns. In other words, Wikipedia is not your school's web page.

This represents the Wikipedia community's concensus on the matter. The administration list needs to go, for starters. — orioneight (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added back the picture, but it may be better suited at the very top, if someone wants to do that. — orioneight (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Definetly not necessary. 69.158.112.105 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelisi

I am warning you for one last time, Be civil toward others. Your edit summary of "rv pointless dickering" is not productive or civil, and from what I gather, the person removing the words you added back was quite right in doing so. You do not own this article, so please work with others in a collaboration. Thank you. Mike H. That's hot 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't own this article, either, and I shall continue to revert destructive edits. Take your own advice. Insulting my intelligence by trying to threaten me with unspecified action is not civil. I shall put "pointless dickering" if I like, whenever an edit is pointless dickering. This I do when an editor has made no meaningful change to an article, for instance, if he has simply changed a few things for the sake of editing. Also, if, as in this case, someone tries to dumb an article down, I will put the same. Kelisi 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

One other thing Mike: "Are you KIDDING me?" isn't very civil, is it? Or how about "uh, big enough?" or "removing tag until you can be bothered to explain why it is such". I have also discovered that you have got into online fights with other users over article contents. For instance, it seems to me that you think you own this article. So please...Kelisi 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Mike has been incivil at some points in the past. That's not the point. You have to be civil in your interactions with users, full stop. Please start doing this. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that Mike H.'s conduct is subject to another discussion. I'm not saying Mike is the perfect example of an editor - I wouldn't know as I don't know him. I am saying that it's not relevant to this discussion - it's Ad hominem and avoiding the issue: Putting semi-personal attacks in the edit summaries is bad form and uncivil - regardless of who does it - please keep it cool and stay civil. Celcius 04:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You two have much better styles. All right, fine – I'll stop. But I would like to mention that there is one other thing I don't like about Mike's style: He is an administrator, and he has not once announced that fact. I had to have a good look at his talk page before I discovered that; it's not mentioned on his user page. I don't really know what all that says about him.....but fine – I'll stop. Kelisi 15:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter if he's an administrator or not? It makes no difference as to the way in which he treats you, I should think. You've been persistently impolite to other editors of this page, and to those who've asked for it to cease. I have to admire Mike's restraint; I would likely have issued several 24-hour blocks for cooling-off purposes.

Please be aware that what you might think of as "pointless dickering" is someone else attempting to help us write a better encyclopaedia. I think quite a lot of the marketing spiel on this page happens to be pointless dickering, but I don't start making reverts and adding that in the edit summaries I leave behind.

Remember that no one person owns this, or any page on Wikipedia. Please also remember that you need to be civil. To everyone, administrator or no. And making off-the-hook attacks about others' behaviour when yours leaves a lot to be desired...well that's something I can't quite understand. Rob Church 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I've updated the infobox today to conform with Template:Infobox Education in Canada PKT 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You have also deleted references to "unknown" alumni. Have a look at this to learn something about these unknown (to you) alumni.

As for Rob Hunter, he is a famous musician, but nothing I've found suggests he's even from Newmarket (more than one source says Milton).

Userbox

This is for anyone who would like to transclude it. Kelisi 03:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Template:User NHS}}

Fair use rationale for Image:NHSbadge.jpg

Image:NHSbadge.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 insure 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) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Wamback Incident? Violence in the 90s?

I feel like the Jonathan Wamback incident needs to be in this article. Jonathan Wamback was a student who (as far as I believe) went to Newmarket High School at one point, and got almost murdered in nearby College Manor Park, probably due to events which unfurrled at NHS between he and other students. While there is no concrete information that he went to NHS online, he did live in Newmarket and College Manor is the nearest highschool (also, I personally know people who said he went there before the incident, and moved into Denison afterwards). Perhaps someone should look into this more?

In addition, various sources I've talked to (I'm from Newmarket and went to NHS)have consistently stated that NHS was a violent-ridden school with gangs in the 90s, which came to a close due to the Wamback incident.Not trying to stir the pot here, I just want to make sure my school's article has as much detail as possible, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.153.3 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the trick is to find material on the topic, specific to NHS, from reliable sources. I get what you wrote about, but we must not add unreferenced allegations, particularly not negative ones. PKT(alk) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)