Talk:Upper St. Clair High School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unenclclopedic Content

Wikipedia is not a godssip blog. Wikipedia is not a community message board. Atricles are to be enclclopedic in tone and content. Included information should be verifyable and relevant to a proper encyclopedic description of Upper St Clair HS.

To that end, the "controversies" section has been deleted as the information is not relevant to an enclclopedic description of this subject(IB controversy perserved in academics section due to being a notable seminal academic issue). Traffic accidents, hirings and firings, minor incidents, scholarships, smoking in the bathroom,etc... are only contemporaneious current events and personal interest (gossip) information that is not relevant to a proper enclclopedic article and description.

This information should remain deleted from Wikipedia. Individuals wishing to gossip and trade current events and opinions are free to start a blog anywher on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endogenous -i (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree.

• The controversies you removed were all sourced. In most cases, the source was a local newspaper. Newspapers are considered a reliable source and they meet the requirements for verifiability. Calling them gossip is an insult to the professional standards of the journalists who wrote the articles.
• I would argue that the controversies you removed were well-written. I couldn't find any examples of opinions or trivial current events. Do you consider a student rapist to be of personal interest, gossip, or trivial? If so, I think most would disagree with you. The other controversies are similar in notability (e.g., a brief section about a widespread cheating scandal that made the news seems relevant to an article about the high school where it happened).
• In general, controversy sections are typical of Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure why this article should be an exception.

I'm going to restore the controversies for the moment. Please respond to my points before clearing them again. MaxVeers (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Max,

First, even using the word 'controversies' is IMO prima fascia incorrect in it’s use, and also inflammatory for the majority of the content that follows. It is un-encyclopedic in tone, and the content is also un-encyclopedic wrt a definition of the school. Any fringe current events topic that may be fit to print in a newspaper does not necessarily have any relevance to a proper encyclopedic definition on wikipedia, nor does a singular newspaper article source prove veracity especially for such thin and insignificant items.

Sourcing does not equal relevance, which is one of the key issues here. The bar is set higher than that and is related specifically to the weight of the content as well as the applicability of the particular facts to the greater intent of the article. I edited it with cause.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to distribute knowledge, not gossip... even sourced gossip. IMO all of the 'controversies' are either not controversies, or not notable or simply irrelevant to the encyclopedic article and therefore do not belong on wikipedia. Current events gossip, yes… relevant to an encyclopedic article, NO.

"The Higbee School, a one room log cabin, was the first known school in the area and was located on the northeast border of present Upper St. Clair in the late 1700's. It was the first school west of the Alleghenies”!... That is relevant, notable, and important... but that a student slipping on a wet floor and sued the school (an every day non-notable occurrence in the usa) is not relevant.

Therein lies the third reason the majority of the ‘controversies’ should be deleted : firing a employee or coach is not a controversy and is not relevant; physical altercations between individuals are not controversies or relevant; alleged rape by an individual student is not a controversy or relevant; smoking in the bathrooms is not relevant; alleged cheating by few students is not relevant; slipping on a wet floor is not relevant; dying in a car crash is not relevant; even students dying in a plane crash is not actually relevant to an encyclopedic article defining upper st. clair high school. This is BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE COMMON EVERY DAY EVENTS, NEITHER UNIQUE NOR NOTABLE (some unfortunately so).

They may be notable wrt the individuals, or as with a local plane crash the fact that the student attended Upper st Clair at the time of his death may be notable for him or an article about the crash, but it is not necessarily notable the other way around for an article about the school itself.

With the exception of the International Baccalaureate IB program 'controversy'... which was/is still being litigated between the ACLU and the school/district for the first time ever, anywhere in the USA... and was/is based on a legitimate controversy of opposing view points (cultural, philosophical, legal, factual, academic, etc…)... The ‘controversies’ section and the content is IMO nothing more than current events or gossip and does not properly belong in this particular article.

It is therefore deleted with cause, for multiple reasons. If you wish to make an argument for why (on an individual point by point basis) it should be restored then 1) show why it is properly considered a controversy about upper st clair high school (not an individual), and 2) why it is notable, relevant, and should be included in an encyclopedic article on wikipedia about upper st clair high school.

Until then, it should remain deleted. Absent a discussion on the merits restoration is nothing more than thoughtless vandalism.

Endogenous -i (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

===Controversies===

I actually disagree with you, Endogenous, and seem to be on the same page with Max on a number of points. In defense of the section:

First, this article has been peer reviewed from my understanding, and the content was apparently substantial enough to remain in the article. I would say absent some sort of discussion about the elimination of controversy sections from articles, the section ought to remain. Moreover, I think the entire argument about how "controversy sections" are intrinsically acts of gossip or vandalism is absurd. Hundreds of articles (and thousands of subjects in general) are defined by their controversies (Watergate scandal among others comes to mind). I understand the difference in widespread appeal; however, I think many of these scandals are not merely trivial issues. For instance, the rape case and ensuing security changes were not simply (as cited) a community concern, but one that effected a pretty widespread group of administrators. To that end, I would say that a number of the "controversies" ought to remain because of their wide impact on the school and its image, just as we leave the SAT scores or grading policies up despite the fact that they will inevitably change.

Second, on the notability argument, you can cross apply several of my responses from the first point. However, you are blatantly failing to establish why these events are truly non-unique and occur in other school districts; for instance, a series of rape accusations that create community unrest and whatnot. I think recognizing the influence of such events is definitely relevant in term of an article with any accuracy or representation of the subject.

Third, I also disagree very strongly with your characterization of journalism and its importance in writing on a subject. I think Max is dead-on...the fact that these stories have appeared in a nationally regarded and widely read newspaper seems to automatically grant some merit to the story...

Fourth, I think your understanding of what is "relevant" is seriously flawed. You write, "Even students dying in a plane crash is not actually relevant to an encyclopedic article defining upper st. clair high school." Fine. If several students die and it is unrelated to the school district, the information probably shouldn't belong. However, I don't think you have articulated any reason why many of the issues are not actually related to the high school. Insofar as these events are ones that are inexplicably linked to the high school, your argument doesn't stand.

Just some thoughts.

NewInThe2 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Following up on that, let's evaluate the controversies on a case-by-case basis. They are:

• Girl's Soccer Coach fired
• Teacher arrest for drug possession
• International Baccalaureate program
• Cheating scandal
• Principal–student assault charges
• Horror movie
• Bus driver supplying alcohol to students
• Student rape charges

I would not impede the removal of all of these as potentially trivial except for student rape charges, cheating scandal, IB program, and soccer coach firing. These four are well-sourced, have created substantial unrest in the community, are closely tied to the high school itself, and have profoundly affected the student experience there. I feel that an article lacking a mention of any of these four would be remiss. MaxVeers (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I think those four (listed by MaxVeers) would be sufficient.

All seem well cited and reasonably well written.

NewInThe2 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The content of the article was good until "Endogenous" used bad judgment to remove important content. Max Veers is correct, and the content should be presented in an objective manner and not deleted arbitrarily. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal was per wikipedi editing guidelines on irrelevance, unencuclopedic content, and verifiability.

72.40.142.58 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

there has been no discussion on the merrits as to wy the points are not simply irrelevant wrt an neutral pov encyclopedic article.

72.40.142.58 (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Unencyclopedic irrelevat unverified poorly/thinly sourced gossip blogging for removal from article

==GOSSIP Blogging / "Controversies"==

===Girl's Soccer Coach fired===

This point is unsourced and irrelevant, especially as hiring/firing is an every day non-notable event, further it is not a neutral POV but rather putting forth a "story" from someone with an aparent personal axe to grind. Per wikipedia guidelines this is deleted for cause.

"Coach Wayne Capra, who led his girl's to many WPIAL championships, was fired as head soccer coach when Board members Angela Petersen, Russ Del Re, Clark Nicklas, and Jeff Joyce voted to end his Upper St. Clair career without reason. No improprieties were found against Coach Capra, however, the board members who voted to fire him declined to yield to the tearful pleas from his entire team. Board member Angela Petersen, usually a supporter of St. Clair athletics, was controversially elected President a few months later ahead of the sitting Vice President breaking from a long standing St. Clair tradition."

===Teacher arrest for drug possession===

This point is not relevant to an encyclopedic description of the high school, it is only contemporaneous gossip. It is also defamatory wrt the individual and the school. All "allegations" are in general unencyclopedic and not properly verified. Also appears the teacher was cleared and returned to work... further suggests this is an irrelevant non-issue.

"On June 30, 2003, physical education teacher and assistant football coach Shawn Morton was arrested during a traffic stop and charged with crack cocaine possession. In September 2003, Morton was suspended without pay after pleading no contest to the charges. After serving a semester's suspension, three months of probation, and completing Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) requirements, he was reinstated as a teacher in January 2004."

===Cheating scandal===

Again, this is not relevant wrt an encylopedic description of the school, it is merely contemporaneous current events gossip (old news), based on "allegations"... sounds like something out of a Farris Buller Movie. The minor children are nto identified, and the incident is long since passed. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedic description, it is gossip, and should be deleted.

"Late in the 2006 spring semester, several seniors, all honors and IB students, were discovered to have been cheating on school assignments. The seniors are alleged to have entered the high school after hours and made their way to various classrooms, stealing and copying various exams, and then returning the copies undetected. The honors students were discovered when, on an English exam, two of the students received perfect scores while all other students in the class received poor scores. When word got to the media, the scandal was exposed, and police were brought in to examine the situation. In the end all four students received no criminal prosecution; however college acceptances for the accused students were in some cases revoked and in other cases delayed."

===Principal assault charges===

Again... not relevant to an encyclopedic description fo the school. Also appears to be a non neutral POV based on the content of the article. "Allegation" with result being findings that school officials acted properly, and child's father admits som violated opublic safety directions... sounds like someone has a personal axe to grind... gossip blogging at it's finest.

"On January 12, 2007, Joseph Rodella, a Mt. Lebanon High School student claimed that USC principal Michael Ghilani assaulted him at a USC-Mt. Lebanon basketball game. Rodella charged the basketball court after Mt. Lebanon won the game. According to Rodella's father, Ghilani knocked Rodella to the ground, then body slammed him and put his knee on his chest. Upper St. Clair Acting Superintendent Terrence Kushner said the district "has investigated the incident" and that "our conclusions are that neither our township police or school officials acted inappropriately.""

I know guys who were there. Dr. Ghilani stopped a kid from rushing the court at a mount Lebanon Game. The kid tried to fight Dr. Ghilani, resulting in his restrainment. Some people say that he kneed him in an unessessary manner. It's a bunch of bull. He had the kid on the ground with his hand on his arm until the police came to help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.204.161 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

In the article the father admits the son was wrong to in fact violate public safety announcements... everythign else is specluative argumentative opinion ... all school officials and police were officially cleard. This is unencyclopedic gossip blogging and should be removed from the article due to irrelevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.142.58 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

===Horror movie===

Teacher resigned, so she did not loose her license, as a result of her violation of public safety laws (blank gun, and chainsaws in the school for movie filming)... also appears violation of employment. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article about the school (though it's interesting because it's a little strange). Clearly gossip blogging, but irrelevant.

"In January 2007, Julie Cantrell, a calculus teacher, resigned after school officials learned that she and her husband had filmed parts of a horror movie, titled "The Killer Inside You", on school grounds. Mr. Cantrell said his wife was told by school officials that she had violated the school's morality code by appearing in the film, which he promoted at the Dark X-Mas Convention in Austintown, Ohio, in November and at the Eerie Horror Film Festival in Erie, Pennsylvania in October. He claimed the school district had given his wife permission to use the school building when classes were not in session. Acting Superintendent Terrence Kushner said there was no contract and the Cantrells did not have permission to film."

===Bus driver supplying alcohol to students===

Underage drinking...Diver Retires, other parties annonamous. This is irrelevant to an encycloped description fo the school because it is trivial gossip, and high school students drink alcohol happens everywhere everyday. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedic description of the school.

"On September 21, 2007, an Upper St. Clair school bus driver admitted to purchasing alcohol for minors. The bus driver resigned shortly after. Police charged the bus driver with furnishing alcohol to minors; if convicted, he may face a $1,000 fine. The four Upper St. Clair juniors that were involved will remain anonymous. "

==Alcohol==

Alcohol case was not proven, so please leave out all oppiniated and unproven information.

Jeeps2009 00:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.142.58 (talk)

===Student rape charges===

While this is the only "controversial" point... it is also unfortunately irrelevant to an encyclopedic description of the high school. As the parties are all monors, and as the records are sealed, and as the judge issued a gag order, the facts are truly unknown and unverifyable. Statutory rape (underage sex < 18 years old in usa) is a common occurance and does not merrit inclusion in an article about any highschool. This is also current events gossip (understandably so) but that does not raise the issue to relevance for an encyclopedic description over time... unfortunately statutory rape is a common occurance worldwide.

I would not be opposed to leaving this item as a public service announcment in the Discussion page (gossip blogging) due to the understandable emotional response , however unfortunately one bad apple does not define the school, it is a commmon occurance, and it is unencyclopedic wrt a description fo the school. Over time this is irrelevant.

It also harms the reputation of all the minor children involved... for those reasons alone it should also be deleted.

"On February 5, 2008, a male Upper St. Clair high school student, a freshman, was arrested and charged with raping two female students, one three times and another twice, between November 2007 and February 2008. The student was also charged with simple assault, aggravated assault and making terroristic threats. According to police, some of the rapes occurred on the high school grounds, in secluded stairwells after hours, while others took place elsewhere. The student charged with the rapes, whose name has not been released because he is a juvenile, is being held in Shuman Juvenile Detention Center. School administrators made undisclosed changes to the high school's security procedures following the arrest.

On February 20, 2008, two more female students came forward with accusations of rape and sexual assault against the suspected student. The student, who denied the charges, remains in custody and may be tried as an adult.

On March 13, 2008, the student was released under the strictest form of house arrest. He is on a electronic monitoring system. He remains inside 24 hours a day, according to the court order. He may not use a cell phone or computer. Only family members, clergy members, and teachers or tutors may visit him."

---

Endogenous -i: Many people contribute to this article. Please keep the Wikipedia "talk page guidelines" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines ]in mind when posting on the discussion page, when moving people's posts, and when asking not to revert. Consensus is achieved with a friendly and communicative attitude. With that in mind, I think that the controversies are not unwarranted as long as all authors agree to follow a neutral POV. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, contributions are great because they add knowledge, but only so long as they improve the article (subjective) and are Encyclopedic with a neutral POV (more or less objective). We can agree to disagree on the subjectivity of writing style, leverl of detail, phraseology, order of contents, etc... However for the inclusion of things like "acusitations" and gossip there should be a logical reason for inclusion in an Encyclopedic Article. All that s "fit to print" is not necessarily relevant for inclusion into an Encyclopedic article, even if it is of great current events interest "gossip".

Per not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an Encyclopedia."... NOT in a Gossip Blog!

I will hazard that all of these "controversies" = current events gossip had been added by parties that are personally involved in the matters (origional content) and have a personal "axe to grind", principally because the points are all negative in tone and generally irrelevant wrt an encyclopedic article with a neutral POV.

• The vast majority of the "controversies" were first and formost, not in fact controversies wrt and encyclopedic descrion of the high school (i have made logical arguments why).

• Second, the Gossip (not controversies) are generally Unencyclopedic (either non-sourced, non-verifyable, irrelevant, non-neutral POV, incomplete misrepresentations, conflations, etc...)

• Third, I origionaly started this discussion about the unencyclopedic gossip, based on a clearly logical argument. BUT, I have not received friendly or logical counter arguments as to why the information is in fact not unencyclopedic gossip. I believe that is because that position is generally indefensable (as it is clear to any neutral oserver it's merely gossip blogging).

• Fourth, I have explained my opinion and the logic of my reasoning (now point by point). No Others have done so, not yourself, nor anyone else. There is no agreement, because there has been no actual discussion on the mertits. e.g. (I stated belief in A logically because of x,y,z and l,m,n reasoning... Someone else believes B, just because... That is Not a discussion).

To address your point above, "not-unwarranted" does Not = "Warranted" or rater Relevant to an Encyclopedic Descrioption. That is the central issue here, as I stated above. The points are un-encyclopedic gossip blogging, nothing more.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they don't back it up with reasoning, then logically they should receive less weight (especially for such thin and irrelevant items). Also, editors are responsible to make sure their edits (or revisions) are in keeping with wikipedia policy.

Per not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an Encyclopedia."... NOT in a Gossip Blog!

Endogenous -i (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Endogenous - i: My point is that perhaps you'd find it easier to build consensus if you didn't simply delete/revert postings. A quick look at other high school entries show less material devoted to "controversies". The altercation between the USCHS principal and a Mt. Lebanon student, however, is posted on the Mt. Lebanon Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Lebanon_High_School ) and thus it exists and shouldn't be simply deleted. A better method might be to take all the controversies and simply mention them in one sentence without much detail. Also rather than feuding over controversies, the USC article would be improved by writing about other activities -- Mt. Lebanon mentions the forensics team, but USC doesn't; a high school in a different state mentions Mock Trial, but USC doesn't. Not a mention about the Thai exchange either, which has been mentioned in the media. Accentuating the positive, adding informative content is preferable to the long section about the controversies, but the fact is most of the mentioned controversies were covered in the local media. Here's a suggestion, rather than reverting to a previous version, simply rename the "controversies" section to "news" and edit it down considerably, then add some positive newsworthy items to the list.

Rereading the comments above, I agree with MaxVeers that it's remiss not to mention some of the controversies that have made the news in the past two years. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree, most high school and school articles on wikipedia do NOT include any section on "controversies" / gossip whatsoever. The items in this article are not notable "news", rather they are curren events gossip. That gibberish is not included in most all articles because it is unencyclopedic gossip blogging!

If the section were properly labled "current events gossip" (as I agree it should be)then it is clearly unencyclopedic and improper for an article on wikipedia. I again referr you to not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an Encyclopedia."... NOT in a Gossip Blog!

You argument for inclusion (because of slight mention in Mt Lebanon article) is baseless, flawed, and at best an overly simplistic conflation to fabricate relevance. The section in Mt lebanon referrs to a friendly "rivalry", which in fact exists to some degree though perhaps more so from one side than the other. (Note also that Mt Lebanon and Upper were at one time a single school district, and at one time mt lebanon was part of St Clair Township, as was all of the south hills of Pittsburgh to the Monongahela river). IMO The mention of a rivalry in both articles would be appropriate, relevant, and proper wrt and encyclopedic article (as there are and have been for many decades sports, acedemic, community, and other friendly rivalries, as well as numerous cross ciommunity ties and cooperations). However, current events gossip/news (especially unproven allegations, and allegations determined to be false by officials and law enforcement) do not properly belong in any article, especially if the article is neutral pov and encyclopedic in booth content and tone. Wikipedia is NOT a Gossip Blog, Current events news feed, or a community message board.

Again, the informatin has been moved to this discussion page to determine if there is any merit or reason to include any of it in an encyclopedic article (objectively, based on fact). My position and opinion is clearly that GOSSIP (especially unsourced, misrepresented, unverifyable, and factualy false gossip) is prima facia unencyclopedic and should be deleted from the article and not preserved. I have edited it with cause and reasoning based on simple principles of logic and in comport with wikipedia policies. As I stated at the beginning, "anyone is free to start a blog anywher on the internet" and to include whatever they would like (relevant or not), however Wikpedia is not a Gossip or Curent Events Blog, it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA!

I believe, as it seem you do also, (we agree) that all items in the "controversies" section are truly not controversies or of any relevance or merrit, especially wrt an encyclopedic article. And that the items are truly nothing more than current events/ gossip/ news. For that very reason alone the items should be deleted in entirety. (not to mention other resons and cause that also merrit deletion).

I further agree that this article, like all articles, can be vastly imporved in numerous ways. The addition of more encyclopedic content, a sports rivalries section, a music department section, a section about the theater department, a section about the football team and notably long time coach Render, etc... would all be entirely relevant and proper wrt an encyclopedic article. I encourage you to improve the article and to add relevant encyclopedic content rather that wasting time providing unreasoned opinion about clearly un-encyclopedic gossip / current events blogging.

Endogenous -i (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Endogenous -i and StaticGull should work this situation out here on the discussion page. The constant reverts are counterproductive. The content has been sourced and hence not mere gossip. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, as I have said above numerous times, sourcing of current events gossip does not mean it is not gossip/ especially for such thin and insignificant allegations, etc.... All of the items are unencyclopedic wrt. a proper article about the high school. You are not helping or addressing my argument, that the material is unencyclopedic and lacks merrit for an encyclopedic article.

Per not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an Encyclopedia."... NOT in a Gossip Blog!

I agree the mindless revisions of my edit is counterproductive, but nfortunately StaticGull does not want to discuss the issue(s) (that the content is unencyclopedic, point by point). I have invited him to do so numeropus times for many weeks, but he just wants to revert without thinking. He now admitted he has not read this discussion page (clear proof of his bad faith editing and actions).

Again, the informatin has been moved to this discussion page to determine if there is any merit or reason to include any of it in an encyclopedic article (objectively, based on fact). My position and opinion is clearly that GOSSIP (especially unsourced, misrepresented, unverifyable, and factualy false gossip) is prima facia unencyclopedic and should be deleted from the article and not preserved (as I have done). I edited it with cause and reasoning based on simple principles of logic and in comport with wikipedia policies. As I stated at the beginning, "anyone is free to start a blog anywher on the internet" and to include whatever they would like (relevant or not), however Wikpedia is not a Gossip or Curent Events Blog, it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endogenous -i (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This will be the last time that I will ask you to cease posting defamatory remarks about me. Consider this your final warning.

“ I agree the mindless revisions of my edit is counterproductive, but nfortunately StaticGull does not want to discuss the issue(s) (that the content is unencyclopedic, point by point). I have invited him to do so numeropus times for many weeks, but he just wants to revert without thinking. He now admitted he has not read this discussion page (clear proof of his bad faith editing and actions). ” — Endogenous -i

Either ascertain the authenticity of those statements or retract them.

I will once again suggest that the "Controversy" section be kept in the article until a consensus to do otherwise has been reached. StaticGull  Talk  16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Ultimatum and threat from StatcGull... how beneficial, and obviously evidence of staticgull's good faith actions... or is it Bad Faith? When logic fails, you use a sledgehammer to get your way. IMO you behave illogically and emotionally.

• Read your own talk page static gull, I invited you to contribute to this discussion (on the merrrits) and to help imporve this article multiple times. You were, and contine to be silent in this discussion page BUT you repetiviely, in BAD FAITH, have been reverting my edits (explained above). Did I miss the memo naming you dictator of Wikipedia?

You most recently asked to be directed to where the content was moved (even though it's clearly right above here for weeks)... proof that you did not read (at least well) the discussion page. Sorry if that offends you; it is not Defamatory, but factual. Sorry that you take offense to the charactyerizations of your actions as mindless. But still, even now, you are silent on the issues and the discussion that the content is unencyclopedic... it's just more of the same from you, you are not addressing the points in question, rather you are IMO mindlessly doing what you please and then defending your BAD actions when they are questioned.

• Truth keeper has above agreed (as is both logical and rational) that the controversies section is truly only current events "news", which in itself is unencyclopedic. IMO it is all current events "gossip", and none of it is proper for an encyclopedic article. I have backed my position and edits up with logic and reasining, and will continue to do so if necessary.

As truthkeeper now also agrees, I had re-titled the section as "Gossip" weeks ago, only to have my edits mindlessly reverted by StaticGull with no discussion or reason (check the history). Again, IMO that is yet another example of staticgull's bad faith edits... I'm sure StatigGull initially meant well in thinking he was protecting against vandalism (a noble goal in theory) but in this case he was incorrect and remiss! Staticgulll erred, threatened to block me, repeatedly edited/reverted without cause, I called him on it and questioned his judgment, now he threatens me again.

AGAIN... IMO the information I deleted should not be part of an encyclopedic article (from the perspective of a neutral party) and should not be preserved, however I moved it to this discussion page to determine if there is any merit or reason to include any of it in an encyclopedic article (objectively, based on fact, logic, and reasoning). I have stated some argument as to why IMO it should be deleted, and if necessary I will further discuss. My position and opinion is clearly that GOSSIP (especially disparaging, unsourced, misrepresented, unverifyable, and factualy false gossip) is prima facia unencyclopedic and should be deleted from the article and should not be preserved (just as I have done). I think Mr Wales would agree... I edited it in GOOD FAITH, with cause and reasoning, based on simple principles of logic and in comport with wikipedia policies.

As I stated at the beginning, (rhetorically) "anyone is free to start a blog anywhere on the internet" and to include whatever they would like (gossip, news, relevant, or irrelevant), however Wikpedia is not a Gossip or Curent Events Blog, it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! Gossip blogging and current events community messaging is not encyclopedic, nor are "allegations" or any drivel that is fit to print. There is a standard of relevance wrt an encyclopedic article.

Per not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an Encyclopedia."... NOT in a Gossip Blog!

It is personally amazing to me the amount of resistance (without logic) to my reasoned edits. If the information were relevant and encyclopedic it would seem there should be a simple and easy point by point argument to prove encyclopedic relevance which would be easily agree upon. The fact that there has been no logical argument to prove relevance, is further support of my reasoned and reasonable edits deleting non-relevant unencyclopedic current events gossip.

• SO: Lets start with this simple question

Q: Explain how unproven "allegations" about individuals, which have been either questioned as misrepreseentations or refuted, and which have not and in many cases cannot be been proven or verified properly, are relevant wrt an encyclopedic article about any high school?

I don't suspect anyone will offer a legitimate or reasonable argument... as IMO logicall there are none.

Endogenous -i (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Endogenous -i:

You've mischaracterized my posts. To be clear, I'll reiterate. 1. I believe that consensus is built when discourse is friendly and productive; 2. the controversies have been sourced, and thus go beyond gossip; 3. the question is whether or not to include in the article ALL sourced information about the subject.

I'll add a new point to the ones above: the entire article is too wordy and needs editing. I'd suggest, as I have earlier, to add a section of "newsworthy" items -- both negative and positive and to present them in a clear concise manner without extraneous material, all the while adhering to NPOV.

Regarding NPOV: whether one agrees with a particular piece of information or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is to present from neutral stance. You've labeled the "controversies" gossip -- but by doing so you yourself are not adhering to NPOV. One person's gossip is not another person's gossip. The trick is to decide how best to present information in an objective and concise manner. Censoring information is not objective, nor is presenting too much detail that's meaningless to the reader. There must always be a middle that can be found. Thanks.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

StaticGull:

I see that the article has been locked until the editing dispute is resolved. I'd suggest editing down your version (i.e the average reader really isn't interested in the intricacies of the schoolboard during the coach firing incident). Cut down the content so that it can be presented more concisely. Then work to reach consensus here on the discussion board.

Thanks.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Truthkeeper, Newsworthy (fit to print) does not mean Relevant wrt and Encyclopedic Article. This is one of the many problems of logic here and central to the issue. Call it what you like, "gossip" which is often printed, or "news", both are contemporaneous current events blogging in the context of an encyclopedia. Especially for such thin and truly irrelevant over time minor events. There is a hurdle of relevance wrt and encyclopedic article that requires both logic and experience.

And I disagree with you, when something is clearly and logically incorrect, there is no middle to be reached. Your argment is obviously an overgeneralized logical fallacy. Are every day events smoking in the bathroom relevant to an encyclopedic article about a particular school, Yes or NO?... that is not a hard question to answer if you use both common sense and logic.

Static gull is not making an argument on the merrits, rather he is reverting because he wants to, not because of any logically reasoned position. Concensus is not a requisite, but logic and reason are.

In general, I agree with building concensus, however wikipedia is not a democracy . I have made logical arguments why the information is not-relevant to an encyclopedic article, and why it thus should be edited and not preserved. No one has yet made made a rational argument why it is relevant to an encyclopedic article... and sourcing does not equal relevance.

• Further, I believe this is a prime example of WP:RECENT wherein encyclopedically irrelevant information creeps into an article, especially for these thin issues.

This comment is a very good summation of the probelm and proper resolution : "Mareino (Talk | contribs) (17,650 bytes) (Undo. See WP:RECENT: it doesn't matter that it's sourced; what matters is that it's too gossipy and petty to appear in an encyclopedia article about a 100-year-old school district)"

• Again, "when you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an Encyclopedia."... NOT in a Gossip/News Current Events Blog!

Perserving part of the problem does not reslove the root issue.

Endogenous -i (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Endogenous -i:

The firing of the soccer coach was indeed controversial -- the question at hand is a. is it important enough to be included, and b. if yes to a. then how specific should the section be? For argument's sake let's posit the incident merits inclusion. Then lets look at the details. Are they relevant? As currently written the piece doesn't mention who made the deciding vote, which as on all boards would be the president. The section mentions a woman named Angela Petersen but then goes on to say she became president after the firing incident. So who was the president who made the deciding vote? This is where the amount of specificity becomes overwhelming.

A simple way to reach agreement is to write a single sentence such as:

"The school has had some minor controversies over the past years, including the firing of the girl's soccer coach."

That's all. Done. Finis. Agreed? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I appreciate the discussion, But no, not agreed... the central issue is that the current event gossip/news content does not merrit inculsion in an encyclopedic article. There are multiple reasons, verifyability for such thin and insignificant items, neutrality, balance, undermining the content article, etc... Please explain to me why interpersonal current events gossip/news belongs in an encyclopedic article?

• Per WP:RECENT "Suggestions for dealing with recentism":

• #1 "The "ten-year test" is one simple thought experiment which may be helpful: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?"

I believe the anwser is clearly NO to all of the current events gossip/news blogging (and further that most are not relevant even today).

Endogenous -i (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the entire "Controversies" section has to go. It's definitely a WP:RECENT problem. Imagine that all this stuff happened in 1978. Would you care? After all, what school district hasn't at some point had: a successful sports coach fired, a teacher accused of a crime that happened off-campus, a student accused of a crime that happened off-campus, students trying to cheat, scuffling at an athletic event? And lest some of you think that I'm trying to whitewash this article to make USC look better -- I'm a Blue Devil, not a Panther, so I could care less if USC's reputation is harmed. I just don't think that Wikipedia is supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of news stories. --M@rēino 01:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to start of by pointing out that, although the more the merrier, I don't think we should resort to canvassing. I have to agree with Truthkeeper88 that a trimmed down version of the "controversies" section — might I suggest we avoid using sub-sections altogether — would be the best way to go. This way the content would be preserved, but the reader wouldn't have to plough through a wall of text. StaticGull  Talk  12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

StaticGull: Thanks for joining the discussion. I advocate trimming the entire article. Avoiding subsections is a good idea. Here's the link to a prior version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_St._Clair_High_School&oldid=213889986 that's less wordy. I'd advocate including the following in controversies: IB, soccer coach, cheating, rape. BUT, I'd also advocate balancing the so-called controversies (perhaps renamed to "Newsworthy" or "USC in the News") with information such as department/teacher/student awards, etc. (obviously sourced.) Finally, in the spirit of trimming the article, I'd suggest moving the IB section the "In the News" section, and trimming it down. As currently written, the IB section is too detailed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• StatigGull, it's interesting that you first in bad faith block my reasoned edits, provide no logic yourself, say only that you want to reach concensus, but then make comment you dislike clearly objective reasoned opinion of others who disagree with you. Marieno was not canvased, he/she weighed in independantly on the same exact issue in a different article about Mt. Lebanon High School, where you had also reverted my edits in bad faith . Your comments show a bias and lack of diligence, you are again remiss.

• I agree 100% with Mareino, based on simple logic, the material is clearly current events WP:RECENT recentism, petty gossip, and prima facia unencyclopedic (irrelevant to an encyclopedic article). As Mareino points out, per wikipedia policy, it does not reasonably pass the test of time because the events are common and not notable. It all is and will remain irrelevant over time . They are therfore (in both of our reasoned & logical opinions) not relevant for inclusion in this article and do not merrit perservation. And that is only one "big picture" reason why they should not be included.

Again, please read this, It is WIKIPEDIA POLICY, not merly my personal opinion:

• "when you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an Encyclopedia."... NOT in a Gossip/News Current Events Blog!

• The suggestion to rename the section "news / current events" or to remove detail but leave the gossipy items and acqusations is illogical because the items are not relevant or proper for inclusion in an Encyclopedic Article... that is the issue here!

Neither, StatuicGull, Truthkeeper, or anyone else, has made any logical argument why the "current events gossip/news" belongs as part of an encyclopedic article and should be preserved. I have provided logic and numersous reasons why it point by point lacks merrit, per various wikipedia policy, and as a matter of simple logic. By the silence on the issue, It appears to me there is logical reasoned concensus about the issue of irrelevance (that the gossip/current events is logically irrelevant).

If someone thinks differently that the items are BOTH relevant and proper for inclusion in an encyclopedic article, then prove it with a logical argument... or just move on.

Endogenous -i (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is rather amusing how my contributions "show a bias and lack of diligence", whilst those that you provide are "reasoned & logical". Oh well, at least you always assume good faith. I would also like to point out that the sourced content in the section in question isn't gossip, as it's properly sourced and the reader may decide what to do with the facts presented to him. I also don't agree that we should remove the content merely due to recentism; the events that occured are rather significant. StaticGull  Talk  15:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to present any rational or logical argument as to why the content is not un-encyclopedic. Your opinion is fine, however absent logic or reasoning, you are not adding anything to the discussion. There are now 3 to 1 in agreement that the section should not be labeled controversies, but rather current events gossip/news and that at very least it should be severely shortened as it is not proportionate or relevant to an encyclopedic article. Further, based on wikipedia guidelines and policies (cited above), 2 of the 3 believe the content should be entirelu edited out and not preserved due to irrelevance, as the gossip is merely recentism, and does not pass the test of time wrt encyclopedic content.

• There is concensus that the gossip should be edited and not preserved... as is the only logical conclusion.

Endogenous -i (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol

Alcohol case was not proven, so please leave out all oppiniated and unproven information. Jeeps2009 00:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghilani attacks student

I heard that Ghilani attacked a mt.lebanon student during a basketball game, i wrote a little bit about it under contreversies, but i didnt cite it properly. I put an external link to my source. It would be great if someone told me how to cite sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fatdelear (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I'll take care of it. Complete details of citing sources can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources and templates to use are at Wikipedia:Citation templates if you know about templates. Also, don't forget to sign your comments on a talk page using four tildes ~~~~. – Paschmitts 02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I know guys who were there. Dr. Ghilani stopped a kid from rushing the court at a mount Lebanon Game. The kid tried to fight Dr. Ghilani, resulting in his restrainment. Some people say that he kneed him in an unessessary manner. It's a bunch of bull. He had the kid on the ground with his hand on his arm until the police came to help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.204.161 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

In the article the father admits the son was wrong to in fact violate public safety announcements... everythign else is specluative argumentative opinion ... all school officials and police were officially cleard. This is unencyclopedic gossip blogging and should be removed from the article due to irrelevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.142.58 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Sex in the Classroom"

Again, as in the case of the Gaffe clase, please do not post rumors regarding misconduct in this article. This article is for factual information, not a mini-tabloid. Unless this case, or any others, is proven or warranted, do not post information in this article.

Thanks,

Jeeps2009 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the min tabloid gossip blogging is clearly unencyclopedic and the content irrelevant to a neutral POV encyclopedic description of the Article... all fo the "controversies" should be permanently deleted in keeping with wikipedia policies.

72.40.142.58 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

International Baccalaureate

Endogenous' version is overly wordy with unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous version was concise and cited the events, whereas the current version is murky:

• Judeo-Christian values isn't mentioned in the Banks article but is mentioned in the Ward piece.
• the phrase "which has been equivocated" is unclear. "Equivocate" means to lie or to hide the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.177.158 (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Rewrite to show that a quote from a board member is used as evidence for IB's relationship with the Earth Charter.
• The following sentences are direct quotation and should be indicated as such:
  • "...We have to be careful about what kind of values our children are being taught."
  • "We support students learning about the rest of the world. Unfortunately, international education has come to mean global citizenship. We object to the focus [solely] on global citizenship. That undermines American citizenship and [our] sense of [national] sovereignty."

Cite the following or else eliminate:

• the progam was "phased" out for all students over a two year period.
• the "excessive cost per student (180% the cost of non-IB curriculum per student)"
• the board's recommendation for an in-house international program.
• "vicious personal attacks".
• the minority report
• the findings of two teachers.
• "It was revealed months later that the administration under Lombardo had intentionally withheld crucial evaluative data the School Board had requested in early 2006, proving Lombardo's insubordination or incompetence."
• "In more recent school board elections, a pro-IB board was elected"

Also, edit out spelling errors and usage errors.

Please edit the new version and the language that violates the NPOV policy. The 7.08.2008 version is easier to read and each point is verifiable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed:

Per Wikipedia policy on verifiability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ) statements that can be challenged in this section have been marked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the shorter and easier-to-read version about the IB controversy. I've changed it to indicate why the curriculum review occurred; and also to indicate that the entire program was cut and thereby affecting 9 - 12th grade students at USC HS. I've eliminated reference to administration, and to various community groups based on the recent discussions regarding "gossip" and "recentism." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

== Questions

An excerpt rom the first paragraph of the "Controversies" section:

A new school board elected in 2005 criticized the International Baccalaureate on the grounds that it was un-American and did not promote Judeo-Christian values. In February 2006 the new school board elected in November 2005 on a platform of fiscal responsiblity voted 5-4 to phase out the IB programme over two years allowing current IB diploma candidates to complete requirements to earn a diploma.

Are the "new school board elected in 2005" and "the new school board elected in November 2005 on a platform of fiscal..." one and the same? --zenohockey 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to read as if yes, they are the same, but I don't know for sure - pm_shef 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that is the same school board. I attend USC High School. - jedimaster51090 1:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks fixed now. Good. --zenohockey 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

An excerpt rom the first paragraph of the "Controversies" section:

A new school board elected in 2005 criticized the International Baccalaureate on the grounds that it was un-American and did not promote Judeo-Christian values. In February 2006 the new school board elected in November 2005 on a platform of fiscal responsiblity voted 5-4 to phase out the IB programme over two years allowing current IB diploma candidates to complete requirements to earn a diploma.

Are the "new school board elected in 2005" and "the new school board elected in November 2005 on a platform of fiscal..." one and the same? --zenohockey 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to read as if yes, they are the same, but I don't know for sure - pm_shef 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that is the same school board. I attend USC High School. - jedimaster51090 1:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks fixed now. Good. --zenohockey 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Posible to become FA article?

Is it possible (realisticly possible) for this article to become a featured article? If so,how would i go about nominating it?Fatdelear 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not...at least not yet. There's too little information on the history of the school, and too much information on events of recent years. If that continues, this will be an extremely long, chronologically unbalanced article.

If you're interested in taking project-wide steps to improve and draw attention to this article, I would start with peer review, which gathers lots of advice from editors who ordinarily wouldn't stumble across this article. --zenohockey 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How would i get someone to review this article?Fatdelear 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind i figured out how to do itFatdelear 15:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it legal for me to take a picture from the a website and paste ot to this article? Or would i have to actually take the picture to post it?Fatdelear 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter. PhoenixTwo 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I've added references for as many of the Notable Alumni as I could. I couldn't find any for Missie Berteotti, Ned Goold, or Trisha Meili. If anyone else can find information about these three, please add it. If nothing is found in a week, I'll remove them from the list. – Paschmitts 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed – Paschmitts 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Transition to Good Article

The Upper St. Clair High School article was peer reviewed so that it may be taken to "Good Article" status, and hopefully "Featured Article" status. Here are the notes from the review:

• Upper St. Clair High School

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 400 meters, use 400 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 400&nbsp;meters.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]

*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?] Jeeps2009 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 20 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please work to make the changes outlined here, and strike through the objective when completed. Jeeps2009 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment

Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school site. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and I'm reviewing this page, I'm currently giving it a grade of B on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of Mid on this importance scale.

My reasoning is as follows: As per many of the comments above, this article is well short of GA status, but it is a strong candidate. It has a lot of information, but lacks citation on such sections as "Controversies" Adam McCormick 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Super. Vacancy Section Removed

I removed the section for the "Superintendant Vacancy" because Dr. Lombardo's spot has been filled. I moved the information to the "Controversy" section because several of the members of the school board did not realize there had been a nomination. If anyone can find information on this from The Almanac, the information may be kept. Otherwise, I will delete it within the next several weeks. Jeeps2009 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Depositions

• I've tried to figure out what these additions are, but for the life of me, can't make sense of them. Until they're posted in an understandable manner, they should remain off the page. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)