Jump to content

Talk:Richmond Hill High School (Ontario)

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

Section under questioning

[edit]

Just in case you are wondering, the section that is being talked about here is as follows:

Controversy

[edit]

For some time, the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) population at RHHS has felt much discrimination at the hand of the current administration. While several schools in York Region have active GSA (Gay/Straight Alliance) groups, RHHS remains without one.

Administration's Point of View

[edit]

The administration continuously tells the LGBT community that all the decisions that have been made are in the best interests of the general population, and for the protection of those involved with GSA. The current administration asserts that the surrounding community would not support such a society, and would create backlash among the students and staff.

Currently

[edit]

Students attending RHHS who wish to be active within GSA are doing everything they can to establish a functioning GSA. They have realized, however, that this cannot be done under the current administration. There are plans to involve the local media that services Richmond Hill, as well as make a formal complaint to the OHRC (The Ontario Human Rights Commission).

Retrieved from "Richmond_Hill_High_School_(Richmond_Hill,_Ontario)" Nicholas.tan 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT was written "Lesbian/Gay/Bad/Teens (LGBT)". What's this? I've corrected it. FreddyWare (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous: What's going on?

[edit]

Who removed the Controversy section? I understand it didn't cite it's sources, but what better source than first accounts from students who go to RHHS? As Tykut put it, this is Wikipedia - just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you can go ahead and remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.8 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • While I didn't remove the "Controversy" section, I do agree with it's removal. These are pretty serious allegations against the administration. They need references. "what better source than first accounts from students who go to RHHS?" - Newspapers and other local media are excellent sources. In fact, first-hand accounts are considered original research, and are against Wikipedia policy. If there have been stories published in the media about this controversy, then simply add back the section, along with the proper citations. If this hasn't been in the news yet, then why not? Call up the local media and let them know. You'll get a lot further in promoting your cause in the local community than in Wikipedia. You can also try self-publishing in Wikinews [1]. And finally, "this is Wikipedia - just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you can go ahead and remove it." Actually, Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold... if you see something you don't like, then change it! Just be careful not to get into an edit war. And remember to sign your comments with "~~~~". Rawr 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it and here's why: Firstly, As said above, these are very serious allegations that I have personally asked Dr. Chan since, who said she has no knowledge of anything of this matter happening. Secondly, it is not fair to say that the student's position on this affair is that it violates their human rights. There has never been a single event, to my knowledge, in which the entire student body has actually condoned a "LGBT" thing. Again, this is a controversial topic, under the Wikipedia:Controversial_Issues, thhus, it is not correct to make sweeping statements suach ast "the students position is..." Thirdly, there has been no reports or complaints to my knowledge that suggest any "first accounts." if you want to state that there has been complaints over the issue, then at least prove it in some way or another. Why don't you write to the OHRC about this? nathanschmidt5 05:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting to see that the person who removed the section used all the wrong reasons, while the person above, who did NOT remove the section, yet condoned it, had the right reasoning. Asking the school's principal if allegations against her are true, or if she is "aware" of them - just what do you expect her to say? Secondly, human rights are human rights. Whether or not the heterosexual population agrees with homosexual rights, does not mean they must be surrendered. Just how old are you, out of curiosity? I can't see somebody who has any basic common sense to say what you are saying. What the students say, DOES NOT MATTER. I will not add the section again due to Rawr's reasoning, which I agree with. 74.12.159.225 19:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just what is wrong with my common sense? It is basic common sense that an issue that was only resolved a few months ago will still be controversial. True, I admit that asking Dr. Chan is not going to prove anything, but at least that settles the adiministrators point of view. Of course what the SAY and THINK are two different things, but this seems to controdict the sentence "The administration continuously tells the LGBT community that all the decisions that have been made are in the best interests of the general population." And to your last question, I'm in grade 11. just wondering, how old are you? Merry Christmas. nathanschmidt5 20:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking Dr. Chan does not settle the administrations point of view. Having had a meeting with Mr. Zelsman, I can assure you, these were the words out of his mouth: "The decisions being made are the ones we feel are the best for both sides." My age will remain in question, but as young as you are, hopefully you have a chance to change your views on homosexuality. Merry Christmas. 74.12.149.238 01:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I never said anywhere that I had negative views towards homosexuality. I said that there are "a significan portion of people in the school who have..." It's conceivably possible that I am one of them, it is conceivably possible that I am not. If you actually look, I did not remove the entire section, only the "viewpoints section." Thus, if you are able to prove that what mr. zelsman says, through an audio recording, or some other proof, than "I can assure you," then feel free to put the controversy back in; but leave out the viewpoints. I hope that we can bring a closure towards this, so I suggest that you either not pursue this matter any further, or provide some proof, at which point we can hopefully come to a consensus as to what to put on the page. nathanschmidt5 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. Just make sure you only include points mentioned in these articles, and reference them properly. Maybe this should go under the 'Clubs and Extracurriculars' section, as it is about a proposed club? Rawr 04:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should go under a separate subsection, as "Controversy" under the clubs section. LGBT/GSA should still not be listed as a distinct club, as it isn't being recognized. However, a properly sourced article from the above site as well as the controversy header should be fine. Unavoidable 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being worried about being the laughing stock of the province? Well, at least now you know you were wrong all those months ago. This weekend I'll expand the section, though anyone else is welcome to expand it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.95.147 (talk • contribs) 1:25, Feb 10, 2007 (UTC)
  • I did some minor changes to the controversial section in question. fixed some spelling / grammar mistakes and added tags requesting attribution. For those who dont know what attribution required is, it's basicly saying that certain passages mention general groups that could be more specified by citing and naming sources. Also, the neutrality template added at the top of the section is added since the neutrality of the section is debated as it is noticable that there are people changing the section in favour of their own personal opinions. wikipedia is a site designed for neutral and unbiased articles, so only neutral content should be added. someone should fix up the attributions and everyone should work together to help keep the section neutral. thanks! 66.36.157.78 05:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tykut: No need to credit yourself

[edit]

This is Wikipedia - no need to credit yourself on the main page. You've already been credited on the history page. I appreciate your work on the page, though - thanks for the additions, and yes, it is a good thing to encourage people to add information to the article, although there is a built in "stub" feature in Wikipedia if you wish to tag it as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unavoidable (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Reverted vandalism

[edit]

Someone replaced "LGBT" with "LOLGBT". I reverted it. I'm an RHHS alumnus and I wish they had a GSA when I was there, so I have a stake in this too :) Queerwiki 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roadhockey deleted the Controversy section a few weeks ago without adding any discussion. I returned it. If anyone would like to debate its content, please do so on the discussion page... I believe that, since there is a list of Clubs on this page, it makes sense to include a section about a controversy over whether a certain club deserves to be recognized or not. User:Queerwiki 19:08, 5 March 2007

Semi-Protection

[edit]

Personally, i think that we could put this article under semi-protection until this issue is resolved. Nicholas.tan 14:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History?

[edit]

For such an old school, it's surprising that there's no history mentioned in this article. Perhaps someone with the time and the talent can add it. You can start here. Of course, don't just copy and paste, unless you want to ask the school board for permission. Rawr 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have sections been removed?

[edit]

I don't understand the rationale for removing important information from this school's page regarding student groups. This is information that may serve to inform parents or potential students from middle schools. --Frederick Ding 05:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick.ding (talk • contribs)

February 2019 Changes

[edit]

I have updated this school page to be in compliance with WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG, WP:BOOSTER, and WP:BLP.

Lead:

  • Removed statement falling under synthesized claim in WP:BOOSTER
  • Removed 20 year old ranking from lead
  • Removed non-notable claim about schools population from lead
  • Removed added OR from current ranking, as noted in WP:BOOSTER
  • Reorganized lead to avoid undue weight on ranking as stated in WP:BOOSTER

History:

  • Removed unsourced statement about a living persons speech. WP:BLP states that such statements must have citations or be removed.

Clubs and Extra-curriculars:

  • This section was removed as it fails to meet the guidelines under WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. Clubs and sports teams should only be mentioned when there is notable content to write about them, or if they relate to a unique/special tradition for the school. The guidelines state "all schools have clubs and listing them does not add to the basic description of the school that is needed for an encyclopedia."

If anyone has any concerns please let me know. Meszzy2 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

[edit]

I am a rhhs student working under their ATHCO and i want to add pictures and descriptions about our athletic success but some people are removing my text as well as the school's official logo for our mascot which is a viking. TBJ10RH (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Revealing that you are a high school student is never good on the internet.
2. You will need to provide sources for your claims about the school's athletics, otherwise it would be considered non-notable and could likely be seen as made-up by readers.
3. Your school's official logo for the mascot is likely not in the creative commons, meaning you will need license from the original creator. Acajacka (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. TBJ10RH (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richmond_Hill_High_School_(Ontario)&oldid=1231731390"