Talk:Kellenberg Memorial High School

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

Citations Needed[edit]

Can someone give citations for the praise of the school's prestige, student involvement, etc. in the second paragraph? I don't doubt that these statements are true, but without citations they sound like PR.Hickoryhillster 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disbanding of Hockey Team[edit]

To try to head off anotehr potential revert war over the paragraph over the school hockey star and the disbanding of the hockey team, i tried a compromise version mentioning the disbanding of the team. I actually think the school's judgement that hockey is against its "Catholic philosophy" is interesting and maybe notable, though I would like to see another line of explanation of the school's complaint, along with citation.Hickoryhillster 12:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the anonymous poster clarified that they were citing one of the letters from the administration. And it's very cool that an athlete from the school won an award from a radio show. But I'm still not seeing why a local radio show award is notable by encylopedic standards. (I notice the 'halftime Howie" show itself has no Wikipedia entry) Hickoryhillster 11:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiability of "prestige" and "reputation" claims[edit]

Recent edits about the school's new nickname ("the controversy that never sleeps") have again raised the question of whether claims about presitge and reputation really belong here if they are not confirmed by a published source. In an edit summary, an anonymous editor claims that "common acceptance is the only available citat[tion]" for reputation--this is an interesting claim, and I'd like to see the editor who made it write an essay about it; but I don't think it's part of a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Instead, I think that the policy that applies here is Wikipedia:Verifiability: "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Therefore, I'm removing all claims about reputation for now. If there are guides to Catholic schools in which Kellenberg is ranked highly, or even news articles in which it is referred to as a prestigious school, then I think that those citations would warrant putting the reputation claims back in. I would be willing to put "the school that never sleeps" back in with the citation to Westbury Times, although I do see the point that one student using that phrase doesn't prove that it is widely used.

-Hickoryhillster 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

Several facts in student activities need citation, preferably from third-party sources. Mentioning the media outlets that carried the story about prom is not a citation. A static link to an article about prom cancellation would be a valuable citation. Ezratrumpet 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Controversies Section[edit]

I question the relevance of two of the items in the controversies section.

With regards to Matthew Maiello, the incidents did not happen at the school, how does it make it a school controversy? That would be like a drug dealer being arrested at Macys and having the Macys Wikipedia article having a section about drug dealers being arrested there. Is it newsworthy? Sure. Encyclopedic? No.

A stolen credit card being part of an Encyclopedic article? Again I ask; Newsworthy? Yes. Encyclopedic? No.

The Controversies Section is an interesting section and I would suggest these two elements are posted by persons that may have an interest in the actual events as opposed to the value they have to the actual article itself. The fact that one of the postings in the discussion section wants to ensure the Miriam Crujeiras incident, “particularly her name”, does not get deleted seems to be self-serving, perhaps vindictive. Using the fact that the article has a Controversies section is not valid backing to keep this information.

Going further into the Controversies section I would suggest the disbanding of the hockey team and the elimination of the prom are themselves not controversies but school positions on the topics; perhaps making the entire Controversies section invalid.

--FredricksSkype (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I would gently remind the above poster of the talk page guideline of commenting on content, not on the contributor.
I would also like to state that I have no particular and/or vindictive interest in either keeping or deleting any of the content under discussion.
My only concerns are that
  • 1)The information was sourced
  • 2)The information is verifiable from a reliable source
  • 3)The information is relevant
Before completing my response, I would also like to mention that this particular article, like many school articles here on Wikipedia, is an occasional target of persistent vandals who delete text, alter well-sourced information and otherwise mar this page.
Now, in response to your stating that since a crime or incident happened off schoolgrounds that would then make that crime or action irrelevant is an interesting position but one that I would not agree with. However, if one wants to posit that the information on these two crimes has perhaps become outdated, that would make more sense. Regarding the other items in the "School events" section: The Prom-banning was widely reported in major media outlets and has not been re-instated since. There is a "Junior-Senior" Prom with The Bristol (a local Senior Citizen home) since at least 2009 but that is a different event entirely. The hockey banning still is in effect so my thinking is that both these particular items - the hockey-banning and the prom-banning - are relevant to providing a reliably-sourced Wikipedia article on this institution. I have removed the crimes/teacher-arrests from the article as no longer being relevant and renamed that section as "Banning of activities".Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both bannings are plainly relevant since they are the result of the application of school policies and received wide publicity. I agree that the assault is not appropriate since it was unrelated to the school. The credit card theft, though, appears to be a theft by a teacher from a student and this goes to security at the school, so again is relevant. I have added some restructure to put the various events more in context and make them less prominent. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does one incident in 25 years truly speak to the security of the school? Do other schools not have crimes that are committed by teachers or other staff members? The question I would ask is - is this truly and encyclopedic incident?
I do not disagree with the banning of certain activities being a part of the entry as they do speak to school policies, I only questioned whether they belonged in a section titled controversies. FredricksSkype (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 'controversies' header was already deleted and the content merged elsewhere within the article. I would suggest that while there is an ongoing discussion about this matter and other editors are weighing in with their views the better path would have been to leave the text in its previous state until a clear consensus was reached. Shearonink (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed; reinserted text which should not be removed until agreement has been reached. Not good reason for removal has been given. TerriersFan (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what would be a good reason for removal? What would be a good reason for keeping? Do we really believe these incidents are encyclopedic? I believe I have stated valid reasons to remove the credit card and Maiello incidents. I also agree with the moving of the banning of the hokey team and prom the activities section. What are the reasons for keeping them?FredricksSkype (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bannings go to the school policy and its application; whether it says anything helpful about those things is for the reader to judge. It is however, quite normal for incidents that attract media attention to be included in school articles. This both because folks who have heard about an incident are likely to come here to find out more and because Wikipedia is media driven. Let me explain. What is encyclopaedic is defined by getting media attention; see for example WP:N. I agree that the Maiello incident is not appropriate because it happened off-premises and did not involve a student. The credit card affair involved a teacher, a student and was at the school and got significant media attention. Again, whether it is important is for the reader to decide. In any case, in response to your concerns the profile of these events has been reduced and they have been put in better context.

This brings me to a question. What is your connection with the school? Please see WP:COI. You are plainly connected; you created this account 8 minutes before you started to remove content from the article and have made no other edits. I think that you should declare your interest. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am affiliated with the school. I am stating this because you believe I have a conflict of interest in my edits. I had no problem with the banning of the prom or hockey team items, just questioned their location within the article. My issue with the credit card incident is how it relates to the school in the scheme of an encyclopedic article. I've seen previous discussions about the credit card theft topic (see above) where the poster seems to state we should make sure the the name of the criminal is kept in the article. From my point of view (POV clearly for the purpose of discussion and not inclusion in the article) that leads me to believe that poster was more interested in including the act to ensure the person that had committed it was forever known rather than the notability of the incident itself.
I do not believe getting media attention = Encyclopedic and I am also pretty certain WP:N states that the fact that something receives media attention does not necessarily make it noteworthy or encyclopedic. This particular item seems to stand out and I as why it is notable to the school. Should I edit the Monarch High School Wikipedia page to include a mention of Sheyla Diaz? She was a faculty member that stole the identities of multiple students (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-23/news/fl-sheyla-diaz-id-theft-20100723_1_house-arrest-identity-theft-credit-card).
Just to make sure we are all on the up and up, are you affiliated with the school, Miriam Crujeiras, or perhaps the incident mentioned? I'm not saying that your as you state that I am clearly affiliated with the school. I suppose all first time editors on Wikipedia are subject to the WP:COI accusation when they edit a topic they are somewhat familiar with. Would you be willing to leave the incident in without the name of the accused? FredricksSkype (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK; if it brings this saga to an end I am happy to agree to the accused name being deleted (Hey! It's already gone!). If it helps, as you can probably guess from my spelling, I am British and I live in England. Not only have I no connection with the school or anyone mentioned in the page, I have never been to the great US of A at all! My interest is simply that I specialise in school articles and have several thousands on my watch list. This one flagged up because there was a large content excision. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kellenberg_Memorial_High_School&oldid=1216204835"