Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:University High School (Los Angeles)

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


Untitled

[edit]

That All4one video: "I swear" I think? Was filmed at Uni too. I remember watching them film it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.223.28 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Big update

[edit]
  • I rewrote the Native American heritage section, based on the research I did for the new Serra Springs article I wrote
  • I've move the alumni list to a new page List of notable alumni of University High School (Los Angeles).
  • I created a new category [[Category:University High School (Los Angeles) Alumni]].
  • I created a new category [[Category:University High School (Los Angeles)]]
  • I added every alumni listed to the alumni category.
  • I added the uni pages to the uni category.
  • I wrote instructions for adding alumni for the alumni talk page

Please look everything over. Also, I've realized that this article should really be moved to University High School (Los Angeles, California), and while fixing the links for this page wouldn't be too terrible, I'm wondering if the categories should also be named that, and if the alumni page should also be named that. If people think so, that change should be made now, before it gets any harder to make that change. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:29, May 7 2007

Hey, I've gotten no response here about moving the page to the proper namespace in the past four days. There are a dozen other Uni Highs that have articles alone--this really needs to be done, and I'd like to do it before this has other subpages and before the alumni cat grows larger. I'm going to go ahead and get started moving everything tonight. So, please don't touch anything while I'm in the process. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:14, May 12 2007
The move is done. I've moved:
  • main article
    • article
    • talk page
    • archive
    • category


  • peer review
    • peer review
    • archived review


  • alumni
    • article
    • talk page
    • category
I fixed all of the links inclduding various archive and talk page linkes (piping them so that what was said didn't change), because not all of the redirect pages are going to be kept. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:06, May 12 2007

Assessment

[edit]

I'm not really sure if I should assume these god-like powers, but I have just assessed this article as B-level and Mid importance for the WP California project. Great work has been done here--the Earl O'Murray would be proud, if he wasn't dead. Regarding the "Mid" rating for importance: I would rate almost any school as low-importance in a state project, but, between the springs and Jan & Dean starting their career in the boys' locker room, this has got to be top-ranked for a high school article. I'm envious. To move up to A or to go for GA, I think that the missing bits of the WPSchools structure need to be completed. It needs good sections on extracurricular activities, inlcuding sports and (I assume) performing arts, students, faculty, and curriculum (if there's anything to say about that last one). The history section does need to be longer--right now, you have mostly included just the things that are notable enough for articles in themselves. I am going to increase the size of some of the thumbs that just look too small to me, and I might try a different infobox, like the one on the page I've done the most work on, Tamalpais High School.--Hjal 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit actually made the thumbnails smaller, so I reverted them back to the size they had been. "if there's anything to say about the last one?" Ha! Yeah--current info on school activities really has to be gotten at the school, and past info on that stuff is in the school archives (not online), and the only parts of the history that are complete are not the biggest or most important parts, but the parts I could source from without leaving for libraries etc. The school's history is interesting from before it opens--it's a product of the annexation of Sawtelle, but the older historical stuff isn't online, and only some of the more recent stuff is. I assume that I should put this rating on the alumni page as well (importance ratings apply to the whole right?). Miss Mondegreen talk  08:03, May 15 2007
Ummm... What resolution are you at? I'm at 1024 x 768 on a 15-inch monitor. At lower res, I can't get enough of a spreadsheet or Word document on-screen. (If I go to a higher res, I can't set the refresh rate as fast as I like.) The thumbs have a default setting of 180px, and I had forgotten that I set my preferences at 250px, which was larger than you had sized yours manually. See [1] You must have your thumb size at the default setting or no more than 200. With resolution at 1600 x 1200 or similar, your manually-set thumbs are going to look pretty small, while they would look pretty large on a 640 x 480 screen--that's the reason for sticking with the default and letting people size them by choosing a preference--it works pretty well from VGA resolution all the way up. Anyway, I just moved my preference up to 300px. I'll try that and then 180 to see what my other edits look like both ways.--Hjal 09:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I get your edit now. However when I had set the sizes of the images by pixel, I made the images different sizes--for a variety of reasons--what I felt looked good and also I felt that some of the images were too pixely when they were larger. Is there any way to have size variety, etc, and still take into account people's settings, etc. so that the images look appropriate on all screens?Miss Mondegreen talk  08:07, May 16 2007

History

[edit]

[Note: I'm separating this discussion from the one about thumbnail images sizes in order to focus on improving the History section. I split Miss Mondegreen's two comments (and added a copy of her signature to the comment above) so they would be adjacent to what she was replying to.--Hjal 04:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Have you seen these?

--Hjal 10:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, I hadn't looked on the webarchive for Uni High stuff, but I've looked through a large number of what's there and it's fascinating. Most of it is only enough to give me starting off points for research--it isn't enough to write from unfortunately. But, I am have been putting together a timeline and a list of questions and other things that I need to research, and it has been, and looks like it will be helpful in filling in those holes. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:07, May 16 2007

Considering all the excitment here, it might interest some to know that the current USHS website has added content to its history section. They used text from this article, with a compliant citation, I think. See University High School History. The ref to us is as follows: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "University High School (Los Angeles)"."--Hjal 04:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's mentioned in a previous archive. I noticed it was there when the site first went up. There was no GFDL notice at all, it said copyright of university... at the bottom, and they were subsequently contacted (you can see some of the discussion on my talk page). Problematically though, they are not compliant. See Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, section 4. Unlike mirrors, they don't fall under the category of verbatim copying, it's a modified version of the document. There's still a copyright symbol on the page, they haven't released the modified version under the GFDL license, nor have they followed most of the steps A through O. I'd been hoping that the person who original contacted them would follow-up, but he didn't, and then I went out of town and I remembered the other day when reading the text of the GFDL that I should remind them that they are not a mirror and need to follow different standards. We have a form letter to send people, but we only recommend that they do a few things--make the changes that are necessary for verbatim copies, not modified copies. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:43, May 24 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion on alumni talk page

[edit]

I've opened discussion about the addition of notable faculty and the psossible renaming of the alumni sub-page on the alumni talk page. See: Talk:List of notable alumni of University High School (Los Angeles, California)#notable faculty? Miss Mondegreen talk  08:29, May 16 2007

Student Viewpoint

[edit]

I currently attend Uni, and there are a few things that could be changed in the article. I'm pretty sure that Lizzie McGuire (the TV show) was filmed often at Uni, and NBC's Teachers. A commercial for Jack in the Box (Ciabatta Junior High) included a picture of the front of the school). The rubber sidewalk runs along the back of the classroom building and the back of the parking lot, so the description is a little unclear. The installation of the rubber sidewalk has been completed (construction equipment has been removed). The article does not dwell on the nature of student complaints incredibly accurately. Most people are concerned that the filming blocks pathes between classes, especially Drillbit Taylor which blocked the back of the administration building and a significant portion of Wildcat Walk (the main path between the Classroom and Administration buildings). Another problem of filming is the attitude of production workers. Often they will drive carts during passing periods without caring AT ALL what they are blocking. The issue of money is less of a concern. A few students see it as a "we went through all this and they didn't even give us money that will help us" or something like that. There's probably a bit more, but it's getting late CHernandez 08:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chernandez--you'll notice that a lot of this article is incomplete. Uni has been popular for filming for decades, and we have a fraction of what's been filmed there. Unfortunately, we can only put information in the article that we can site--no original research is allowed on wikipedia. So, if you can find sources for the things that you're talking about, or let us know about articles in the Wildcat etc. that address these issues--that would be great. As one of the primary writers of this article, I try to read the wildcat (online) regularly, but i fall behind, etc, and as a current student, you would be aware of things that are filming now, and if Uni High receives any press, or anything really. And if you don't have a source for something but know that we're missing alumni, etc, let us know and I'll look for a source. Part of the battle is not knowing what we're missing and the other part is finding all of the information about it and sourcing it, so anything that you can help with would be great.
In re the other things you mentioned:
I'm pretty sure that the article makes it sound like construction is complete, not pending.
Also, you'll notice we used wildcat articles and la times articles etc to try and grasp student complaints. Most were around the time of drillbit taylor, so it's hard to write something on "student complains in general" and there are links to all of the articles that explain what the specific complaints were. However, realize that there were also articles (by students, in the Wildcat) who were pleased about the filming. It is a very controversial issue obviously, for the student body and the faculty but we can only present what's been written before. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:17, May 19 2007
It seems to me that most students are pleased about filming at the school, and it certainly is fun to see Uni in movies or TV shows (especially when they use the back entrance as the front or something like that). The problem with the school newspaper is that they don't cover much of the filming since a lot does go on during winter or summer breaks. They also cover too much outside of the school in the feature section. The strength of the newspaper is the opinion section, but that doesn't really reflect on school events very often. CHernandez 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Filmore Middle" is the same as "Teachers" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0494188/) which ran for a few episodes last year. If you type "Filmore Middle" into the IMDB search "Teachers" is the show you get.CHernandez 02:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki page for "Teachers" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachers_%28US_TV_series%29 - Note that the show takes place at Filmore High.CHernandez 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation #42 also mentions a JCPenny catalogue. Maybe that could be included in other CHernandez 02:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

filming on campus (attn: whisper)

[edit]

First, I don't think that the language used:

"the school gets paid x, but only recieves y after a portion goes to the district".

is implying that the Lausd receives money it ought not to, and even if it is, we're not the ones saying that--the sources we're citing are, and let's face it, they have and do with frequency. The section starts off talking about the controversial aspect of the filming on campus, mainly because other than name-dropping, that's all that there is to it. And considering that the controversy goes much deeper and covers more than what we have (we only have what we can find sources on), I think that attempting to shy away from what's represented in the sources we have is a bad idea, and isn't neutral. We've presented both sides of the issue, and if anything the controversial aspect of the filming is under represented. We aren't saying anything (there's no OR or SYN in the section), and I think that it's fairly neutral. I think the section needs more information however. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:18, May 21 2007

  • It may not seem that way to you, but it may be construed as a POV manner. NPOV is non-negotiable. Anyway, as for "I think that attempting to shy away from what's represented in the sources we have is a bad idea, and isn't neutral." - If there is a controversy, use X states Y. E.G. Billy Joe states that University High School's funds are not sufficient for X, etc. WhisperToMe 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it was, it was coming off of a section on complaints about filming. If it was too subtle, my edit should have easily taken care of it. Please note that there's no reason to copy comments made here to my talk page as I watch this page. If I don't log in, I don't see either page. If I do, the difference in response time will be negligable. Also in re my talk page, I responded to a comment you left a few days ago and am still waiting for a response. If you are not watching my talk page and would like to be pinged if I reply to you there, please let me know. I am not a mind reader. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:22, May 21 2007 (UTC)

"One chief complaint is that while the school gets paid $1,700 for every day companies film on campus it only receives $1,190 after the LAUSD takes 30% of the school's earnings." - Now, this is a good 2nd step - What would be great is to know who is complaining. Is it an administrator? A student? A group of students? Also, I would cut out "only" so that it reads: "One chief complaint made by X (X stands for the complaining party) is that while the school receoves $1,700 for every day companies film on campus it keeps $1,190 after the LAUSD takes 30% of the school's earnings." WhisperToMe 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source. I could provide links to the multiple student articles which have covered it etc, but when I did that before, that was critized as oversourcing.
I don't know how you attributed the complaint to the administrator--you provided NO source for that and further, you inserted that into the section where it's talking about the controversies caused by the filming. The administrator in question is the main proponent of the filming on campus and is the reason that the campus is so popular for filming. Now, you followed WP:BOLD, and I am discussing all of your issues with you. But WP:BOLD does not mean say "revert discuss rerevert" or to insert unsourced material or to change the meaning of the section when there's ongoing discussion. There's ongoing discussion now, and as even small changes have been contentious, we can bother to talk them out here first.
Also, do not take this to my talk page. First, I watch this page too--you won't get a faster response or more of a response by commenting there. All you're doing is making sure that the discussion is spread in multiple pages and this is not my article or our article and other people might want to weigh in on it and they shouldn't have to go searching on my talk page for comments that belong here. Please state your specific problems with the section and your proposed changes here first. Feel free to slap a disputed tag on that section if you feel that your complaints necessitate that, but the kind of edits you've been doing in response are unacceptable. I don't think a disputed tag is necessary though. I respond to almost every comment on here and certainly everyone that asks for a reply. I've been begging for comments, for more participation, both here and on the subpage (which needs to be renamed but I want comments first). Speaking of renamings--I know we just went through this, but it did occur to me. The school is officially named "University Senior High School" Miss Mondegreen talk  23:26, May 21 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see - Galedary made a complaint about the misuse of the budget, NOT necessarily the raw amount that the school makes (I used http://my.highschooljournalism.org/ca/losangeles/uni/article.cfm?eid=1149&aid=13714 ) - You can add his name to the complaints about the budget misuses.

Anyway, state that Jacob Bezerin, a student, complained about the amount of money LAUSD took - Let's put him in the sentence - http://my.highschooljournalism.org/ca/losangeles/uni/article.cfm?eid=840&aid=9500

Jacob was a senior last year, so "former student" may be more appropriate.CHernandez 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, instead of using the word "only," why not add "Bezerin, complaining about old textbooks, stated that the amount taken directly by University High School is insufficient." WhisperToMe 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sources that I've bothered to compile--Galedary never complained about misuse of budget, he responsed to a complaint about misuse of budget. Stop trying to apply each opinion to one person. First, the presumption is that in a school newspaper, where there are teachers in charge of the project, no editorial is published that only represents one persons view on something. At the very least, the teacher had to allow it, and you'll notice that Galedary, who replied to other criticisms of the budget in the paper never replied publically to this one. If it bothers you so much that I only have one source for it, tag it, and I'll add more. Not tonight, but I'll add them. I'm sure I have them bookmarked but I don't have time now.
And unless one student or administrator made an enormous impact and their name should be mentioned--unless they voiced opinions that were not common, we aren't going to attach those opinions to individuals. That's ridiculous. This has been an issue that's been going on for decades at the school, and citing that a former student made one complaint and an administrator responded to another student's complaint in an editorial---are you kidding? Miss Mondegreen talk  06:40, May 22 2007 (UTC)
  • - Well, you need to identify who is making the complaints - And, yes, more sources would be great. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words states that such statements should have sources. Well, yes, you have citations for the complaints, but the other point of this guideline is that we should know who is making the complaints. If the article source states that students in general make complaints, use that. You should say that Bezerin (and, if applicable, others) published (an) article(s) stating that students make the complaints. Or you can say that the University High School Epublication reports that students complain. Either way, names of people and groups publishing/making statements are essential within the article. WhisperToMe 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's just students, though the article makes it sound like it coming after the part about the editorials. If the read the section, the do sound like student complaints. I don't have time to add the additional references now, but should tonight or tomorrow morning. I don't remember off the top of my head who was complaining in those, so I'm going to leave it untouched until then. Whisper--it would also help if you read the article, or re-read it to refresh your memory and the sources in question. It's not an epublication, which the article makes very clear--archived copies of the high schools newspaper are available online, back until a certain point, and then the archives are only available in hard copy on the campus.
  • I, and other writers have put real effort into giving background to everything and making the article read well, so that if you didn't know about the school, you could read the article and know something about it. Readers I don't think should be confused about the newspaper or where complaints are coming from etc, and it's a lot harder to work out issues of potential npov etc, when through the changes you make or suggest, it appears as though you are looking at one line, and haven't read the article or the sources in question. I've read each source probably multiple times, and I wrote the section in question, and reviewed it every time a change has been made, but when you raised the issue, I still went to the article, read the section carefully and reread the sources carefully. I consider the issues you've raised to be serious ones, and I took the matter seriously and spent time going over everything--even though, as I had written the section, I knew the material pretty well. Considering that you are the person who is raising these issues and is finding problems with the quality of the article and attempting to raise it, I would have hoped that you would be taking the matter as seriously--especially if you take into account how much you hounded me about this. However you've made large changes that have been blatantly inaccurate, moved text without bothering to move the supporting references, and don't seem to be taking much interest in the accuracy of the piece beyond the part that you have a quibble with. You want where you think the article is misleading/NPOV/not well enough sourced, to be changed, but you are willing to change it in ways that are blatantly incorrect. It didn't even cross your mind to ask whether or not the student in question was still attending the school, and other issues of verifiablity etc, you've ignored. NPOV must be balanced, and you seem wiling to severly unbalance it, and willing to ignore accuracy and verifiability altogether.
  • I'll try and add the sources by tomorrow morning at the latest, and if I can't do that, I'll rewrite the section again. If you'd like to add fact tags in the meantime, go ahead. But if you're going to continue to argue about "or" v "and", etc. please read the article, read the sources and know what you're arguing about. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:01, May 22 2007 (UTC)
Well, since you told me to read the articles, I read one, and found:

" After extracting 30% of the money gained, LAUSD gives it to the school to store in an account. Teachers that need desks fixed or new markers go to the budget meetings and ask for the money. Mr. Galedary recently used the money to purchase new desks for classrooms and tables for the cafeteria." from [2] - So, does this mean that LAUSD gets the money first and then gives it to the school?

And... " It is unfair for LAUSD to take away the funds from our school, especially when so much has been cut from our budget. We need this money to make up for buget cuts. If the students have to put up with the numerous inconveniences that the filming crews give them, they should receive not 70% percent of the benefits, but all of them." [3] - Mondegreen, we have to mention Bezerin's name. Yes, many other students may share his sentiments, but the difference is that Bezerin's editorial was published, while the other ones were not. WhisperToMe 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, if your new sources contain more names, be sure to include them too :)

An example from a debate about a Houston school and uniforms is: "The newly-created policy was criticized in the May 16, 2006 Houston Chronicle by Alice Davidson in her "Screaming in the Halls" column in the "Yo! Houston" section of the newspaper [25]. Alice Davidson is, as of 2006, a student columnist who attends Lamar. The Houston Chronicle printed a feature about the Lamar uniform policy in the August 22, 2006 edition of the Yo! section [26] [27]; the feature was written by Jessica Silverman, a student at Lamar as of 2006."

WhisperToMe 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swatjester removed the statement. Why not explain things to him and include him in the discussion? WhisperToMe 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shoot, how many places is this discussion going on? The way it's written now it quickly mentions the student complaints in general. The student newspaper publishes a lot of stuff on the filming, and I'm not going to list every student who's name has been published being critical of some aspect and then explain what aspect. In fact, almost every wildcat article on the filming I've seen is critical of the filming in some way--a lot start out something like "if you were wondering why you couldn't get to your classes all of last week and why the cafeteria was off limits, well..." The rest of the article will be about the shoot or the pilot or the famous person, or the cool special affects, but the students who are displaced manage to get that in there. So the current section on that is two lines-it goes over the editorials and complaints without making it a big section. Really, uni has gotten a suprising amount of press as a "film school" and the editorials pale in comparison. Btw, the version I'm referring to is this one, not the current version it's locked in. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:40, May 23 2007 (UTC)

No need. The information was half unsourced, that was deleted per WP:V. The rest was sourced, but by an unreliable source. Per WP:RS Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.. That website is written by students. They are neither generally regarded as trustworthy, nor authoritative. Their information is not fact-checked, which is critical regarding negative material. As the information fails to meet WP:RS, it cannot be included. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. It's not a website written by students. It's the web archive of the student newspaper which has faculty leadership. The one critism of the use of the budget which the administration strongly objected to, and responded to in the school paper, I included both sources. Students, teachers and administrators can all contribute to the paper and faculty oversees the production and what goes into it. Please show me what was half-unsourced--I'd love to know. Though I'm a bit curious as to what happened to the LAtimes article on the filming at the school, I thought that source was in here too, if not I'll add it. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:49, May 23 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The information seems relevant, is properly cited/sourced, and the source seems legitimate. Also, a variety of views are presented in the article. If 18-year-old high school students are able to be drafted and vote, they certainly should be allowed to be journalists as well. Badagnani 20:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please. Compulsive liars can be drafted and vote. Should they be journalists as well? It is NOT a legitimate source.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics

[edit]

Uni isn't a great sport's school (or even good for that matter), but the Wildcat Sport's Section is pretty comprehensive, so a small section about the school's sports may be possible. Also, once the school get's its new website fully working there may be a better list of achievements (like City championships).CHernandez 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HALT!

[edit]

I can't edit the damn thing, see what you've done or comment if you're going to revert that quickly.

WikiProject schools accepts high school newspaper articles as reliable sources. While produced by students, this is a paper that has been in print since the inception of the school, and trust me, the administration has had no problem banning editorials it had a problem with [4]. I've also been very thorough in making sure that responses to articles have been linked to with articles and I've been very careful to check for follow-ups of any kind including corrections and retractions.

I'd also like to point out that you seem to have no problem with the paper as a source for stuff that makes the school look good, or that's neutral. Talk about POV. Also, please note that not all of the sources are from the wildcat. Or are the CSM and the LAtimes not good enough?

Also, I'm more than pissed off that every time someone has a complaint or problem with this article, I spend hours and hours and hours of my time fixing it and they don't lift a finger. The numerous revisions this article has gone through during this debate because of this complaint have been largely inaccurate, badly sourced or unsourced, and it was completely unnecessary as I was responding to the issue. Also, it couldn't hurt for someone else to actually do something every once in a while. But, if you aren't going to do the work, then don't break it without discussing it. I'm tired of false material being in the article because someone had an issue with one word, and I'm tired of sections and sources being taken out because people can't bother to listen to the project or reply to the most recent comment left first. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:52, May 23 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a source showing that they aren't required to fact-check, etc. You can't just make up claims about what you assume a student newspaper to be on the basis of nothing. Do you have any basis for this? If so, provide sources.
I commented yesterday that wikiproject schools allowed the use of student newspapers. You, and everyone else edit warring havn't found the time to comment here, but swatjester, you've managed to make multiple edits on the article, go to multiple people's talk pages and talk about me in a very insulting manner. You seem unwilling to present your complaints, use a talk page, respond to anything I say, and I am quite serious--I will take this to ANI if that's what it takes to get you to a talk page. The page should not require babysitting because people are reverting, reverting, reverting and completely ignore the whole TALKING part. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:44, May 23 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject schools is not policy. 66.253.139.45 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that information on WP is on a "guilty until proven innocent" policy - And that, if a suitable source cannot be found, the information should not stay, especially if it consists of accusations and controversy. WhisperToMe 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source is suitable and legitimate. Badagnani 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. You've yet to explain any rationale as to why. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did. Badagnani 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up on AN/I. Go there. Be aware of the 3RR. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment that started this section? Anyway--let's test something, exactly what bits of information do you object to using the school newspaper as a source for. Clearly, it's not the school newspaper as a source in general, as you didn't remove it as a source anywhere else in the article and even within the section, you only removed "controversial" stuff. So take the specific phrases you think that the newspaper isn't a good enough source for here please. With an explanation of why if possible. If not, a list would be a start. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:07, May 23 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request for comment here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/University_High_School_(Los_Angeles,_California) WhisperToMe 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper I already left a comment about this at ANI, but that RFC seems completely whack to me. The versions of the page you are comparing have out of date information and are completely different from the new version. I specifically rewrote the section to take care of words which could cast a particular tone (like "only") and made it very clear where the opinions were coming from, unless it was something like "classes get distrupted" which was supported by every source that talked about that aspect of filming, both wildcat ones and non-wildcat ones. Even then, I'd put links to one or two of the articles that addressed the issue the most or the particularities of what I'd just mentioned. Does this version take care of the issues you raised (the issue of are school newspaper articles reliable sources non-withstanding)? Also, are there any sources that you can't see or can't see all of? If so, let me know which ones and I'll post alternate links here. Most articles are transcluded elsewhere (at the very least on someone's blog) and while the aren't adequate for sourcing most often, they are for reading when you don't have access to the real thing. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:04, May 23 2007 (UTC)

Statement of the issue

[edit]

Miss Mondegreen: if you're prepared to listen, we'll present our position one more time. I don't care about the information per se. The issue is, that the information is negative, even defamatory. If I were the principal of the school, I could be fired over allegations of mismanagement of funds. This puts Wikipedia at risk. I will be incredibly clear about this, once again, as I have stated multiple times already: IF YOU CAN SOURCE THE INFORMATION FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE, THEN PUT IT IN. You have yet to show us any of those sources. The CSM source does not bear the allegations, nor do any of the others. All that matters is that the negative information be sourced reliably. If you cannot do that, the information cannot be included. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why you removed factual citations for changes made to the front of the building during the filming of drillbit taylor and how much the film made? Bull. The article quite clearly states:

"Editorials have complained about the portion of the money that goes to the LAUSD, and the way the money is spent by the school."

The editorial in question was published by the paper. It is online. We are simply reporting information that is verifiably accurate--to leave out accusations editorials have made would be seriously POV. You'll notice that I included the links to both the editorial and the response from the administration.
However, if that was all that was the issue, then I don't see why so many other sources were removed. Make up your mind. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:07, May 24 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article said "editorials have complained".....but it did not cite WHICH editorials. If it was citing student editorials, then they were non notable. I will repeat again, my only issue is the negative information which is sourced by the student newspaper. If it was sourced by any reliable source I would have no problem with it. I also removed a few statements which did not have ANY references attributed to them (or if they did, they were not clearly marked). Both of which are in line with policy.
I will ask you flat out: Are you going to go and find other sources for the criticisms, or not? Because if not, then the information is not going to be acceptable to include.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the sole arbiter of what is and is not acceptable in Wikipedia or this article. How about discussing the issue without issuing ultimatums? You can certainly disagree with the use of a high school newspaper without issuing ultimatums and edit warring.
However, I tend to agree with Miss Mondegreen that an editorial in a student newspaper is, in some limited cases, a reliable source. It's not much of a source and it shouldn't merit more than a passing mention or form the backbone of a large section of an article but those are more undue weight issues than a verifiability or reliability ones. In this case, that the administration responded to the concerns expressed in the editorial add weight to it and the response is itself a citable source. --ElKevbo 00:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to "own" the article in what way when I explicitly have said multiple times that I don't care about the article, and I'm only trying to address the incredibly bad sourcing on negative statements? ElKevbo, you're better than that, come on. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just so I'm clear, I think edit warring has occurred on both sides of this dispute and it's unacceptable regardless of who is "right" or with whom I agree. It's ridiculous that this immediately went from edit warring to ANI and I'm very disappointed in the actions of many editors who have participated in this debacle. --ElKevbo 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Past articles in the Wildcat focused not only on the distruption to students, but on how the money made from the constant filming is spent. Editorials have complained about the portion of the money that goes to the LAUSD, and the way the money is spent by the school."

What's the antecedent? Past articles in the wildcat. Would you like something redundant that spells it out just in case someone can't understand?

"Past articles in the Wildcat focused not only on the distruption to students, but on how the money made from the constant filming is spent. Editorials in the Wildcat have complained about the portion of the money that goes to the LAUSD, and the way the money is spent by the school."

There, is that better?
As to your last question--which sources are you referring to? The ones for the sentences I just quoted or all of the sources that you've removed without being able to explain why? Well, the answer is no on both grounds. First, they are editorials in the Wildcat. If these complaints were made elsewhere it would of course be important and added but even if they aren't, we shouldn't ignore the ones that exist. We report what exists--we don't only report complaints we think are valid or correct. It's not WP:TRUTH--it's WP:V.
Please list what you thought was unsourced and why you removed the sources for several statements when according to you, this is the only one you have an issue with. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:38, May 24 2007 (UTC)
Oh for the love of god will you stop intentionally misquoting me? I never said I only had a problem with one statement. I said I had a problem with a single issue, and that was the use of the high school newspaper as a source for negative information. Even ElKevbo acknowledges that. Stop misquoting and misrepresenting me, it's trolling and it's uncivil.


And for the record, your blockquoted statements are fine. I have no objection to that part. What I do have an objection to is that you're using an unreliable source, to include negative material. It's so incredibly simple it's mind numbing. Other than that block quote you mentioned earlier, replace ALL the high school journalism references in the filming section, with better sources. It's THAT SIMPLE. The rest of the article is ok, although personally I think the high school journalism references should not be used anywhere, but I'm fine with them being used for the movie list, or outside the disputed section, because those spots are not negative. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I thought you were just asking whether or not I was going to get alternate sources for allegations of mismanagement of funds. If you didn't have an issue with that section why would I need alternate sources? Also, please, I'm still waiting for a list of unsourced statments. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:44, May 24 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The high school newspaper source is reliable. The reporter clearly got a variety of opinions and the names of the people quoted are given. As a compromise, the text can be qualified by stating that "the high school's school newspaper reported that...", then give the information. But the source (the high school newspaper) is fine to use according to our guidelines, and in this case I can see no reason to exclude it simply on the basis that its writers are under 20 years of age. Badagnani 01:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swatjester has an issue apparantly with using the newspaper as a source in general--we can't say the newspaper said _____ when we're dealing with facts. Removing the newspaper sources left a lot of the little details unsourced because the articles in the latimes etc were on filming in schools in general and only discussed uni a part of the time. Look at the other sections too--the mascot section the tree section, remove the newspaper sources and the section is gone. The tree section has lots of other sources, but the school newspaper sources are the ones that have the little details about the school which are needed in order to write it, and the mascot section--well we can write the whole thing except we'd have no source for the change of the uni mascot in particular because afaik it's not covered in any articles and it's not covered in any of the lausd documents--they don't go into those kinds of particulars. And we don't have stuff on current academics and sports etc, but where do you think we're going to get sources for those? They won't all be wildcat sources, but we'll certainly need them. Even the springs section uses wildcat sources--the newspaper covers events, so we have an article that tells us about a fairly recent before columbus day and it's success in detail. Events like these are covered in the latimes and other local papers but they're covered before the events--to announce them, generally in the calender section so we get much less of a reporting on the event itself. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:44, May 24 2007 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to take out everything citing the school newspaper. Who knows what is going on at the school better than the students and administrators? I know I can't be a trusted source because I can't verify that I go to Uni, but the people writing for this newspaper are clearly students. Better yet, this newspaper is written by a class (Journalism 2) run by... a Teacher! For the most part, these articles do not need to be fact checked because all of the figures named come directly from administrators. If these students (and the teacher) were making up numbers, the newspaper would have been shut down years ago. 71.105.86.210 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I closed the RfC on this debate today as it seems to have long ago subsided. Douglasmtaylor T/C 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

I've blocked this page for a while so that discussion can proceed without further reverts. Please work towards consensus. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request from Miss M, I'm going to remove the protection. Please avoid revert wars and try to discuss contentious issues. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in other news...

[edit]

The edit war started while I was in the middle of writing. So, I've continued in a sandbox. I'm adding the sources I never got a chance to, fixing horrendous spelling and html errors, that sort of thing. It needs a good bit of copy-editing, so feel free to do that there, but please don't take the edit war there. This is a copy of the version already protected here for me to work on.

I do however have some questions that I'd normally pose here, except that this discussion page is so being overrun by the edit war. Issues with particular sources etc, questions I'm going to put on the talk page there, and once this whole thing is over, I'll copy the discussion over here.

But it's impossible to have both any discussion about the actual sources and wording here while this hubbub is going on. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:11, May 24 2007 (UTC)

Update

[edit]

As some of you know, the edit war and protection took place while I was actively working on the section in question.

I continued my work in my Sandbox, which I'll keep alive so that users can see the edit history and the talk page if they'd like (I'm the only contributer to both).

The issue of whether or not the high school newspaper can be trusted as a factual source has not yet been decided, and until consensus has been reached, please, don't edit war over this issue. For the record, a version of the article without the high school nespaper sources can be found here User:Miss Mondegreen/Uni sandbox. It's not entirely up to date with the current version but it gives a good approximation.

I've moved the full copy of the filming section over to this page. Please, let's discuss and avoid edit wars! Miss Mondegreen talk  00:02, May 26 2007 (UTC)

merge tags

[edit]

I removed the merge tags. No comment on either this or the alumni article was given. Kintetsubuffalo--this list was originally in this article and for several reasons, separated. You can see the previous discussion either on the talk page or in the archives. If you'd like to bring this proposal up again, please provide a reasoning and consider the immense amount of work involved in this sort of merge. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:22, October 31 2007 (UTC)

alumni

[edit]

the alumni section had no information that contributed to the article and wasn't verified

I moved it to the bottom of the page as the alumni section is generally placed at the bottom of a school page, and changed it to a standard See Also section with a link to the alumni article. I don't really think anything more then a link to the article is necessary. If someone disagrees, take a gander. But what we had there didn't help the article, wasn't properly sourced, etc. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School websites

[edit]

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.glo.org/university_hs/

This one seems to have been the URL for the school website, but no actual copies were archived. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reverting ip edits that construe vandalism

[edit]

Recent edits regarding beautiful persons attending the school are not cited and unsubstantial. --RichardMills65 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

famous students

[edit]

Didn't Bobby Driscoll (1937-1968), who was a famous child actor, attend this school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.134.231 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Caifornia academic decathlon team

[edit]

Campus map

[edit]

http://university-lausd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1291557780942/1294471024436/6976247508528720089.pdf - Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6eKSgsysz WhisperToMe (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University High School (Los Angeles, California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on University High School (Los Angeles). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_High_School_(Los_Angeles)&oldid=1206186152"