Talk:Baltimore City College

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBaltimore City College is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 1, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 14, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
April 29, 2014Featured article reviewKept
March 7, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Recent News Removal[edit]

Thx2005 why would u remove the recent news section not only was it useful but many important items have been permanently removed as a result like the schools rankings etc. Also vandalism is not worthy of its own section in history it is simply a recent news piece. Your revision has costed the page

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.47.26 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I forgot to sign above--Bcc07 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK listen, whoever is editing these City articles keep trying to make out the article to be some kind of brochure. It's supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE, not a "how great City is" article. You and all the Poly editors need to cut out the whole "we're the best" crap out on wikipedia. Both sides consistenly use weasel words in all of their articles. No encyclopedic article is supposed to have a "Recent News" section, its supposed to be integrated into the rest of the article. So STOP REVERTING MY CHANGES because the changes your making are not in compliance with Wikipedia's standards. Check em' if you want. Thx2005 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are lodging personal attacks against the editors and the institutions and its a shame because you can not point to and have not found one incident of weasel words present in the article. Your revisions have costed the page valuable information such as notable alumni and news. All I am asking is that you comply with the BCC project, make positive contributions here and elsewhere on wikipedia, and also that you consult with other members of the project before you make big changes.--Bcc07 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


LOOK THROUGH THE PAGE, I integrated all the "Recent News" into the article. For example, the thing about Newsweek is in the initial paragraph now next the thing about the blue ribbon school award. The Poly City game is in the football rivalry section, the vandalism part is in the historical section now. All of the alumni have been unchanged by me. All I did was consolidate and move information I DIDN'T, " DELETE ANYTHING. Besides that, no one is making personal attacks, there are just parts where there are certain words used like "distinction", "best", "strong academic tradition". Whoever is doing the history needs to stop putting those words in. Fact is I contribute all to Baltimore City schools (not just City) so stop talking to me like I'm tringto mess it up. Thx2005 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you are arguing you're suggesting that because I added BCC People of "Note" to the category that I am using weasel words, but do u recogonize that the subcategory title uses the same language BCC "Notable" Alumni its because that is what makes the page significant the people are of note. Yale and Stuyvessant use the same title y? b/c the sections list people of note duh!

Furthermore the use of words such as "distinction", "best", "strong academic tradition" are not weasel words. 1) distinction- an honor such as the very many mentioned in the article (not weasel word) 2) best not used in article at any point 3) strong academic tradition- has a source,and is common knowledge Thx2005 I have checked the BUDL page there are many brochure points there


Clock Tower?[edit]

Being a Baltimore City College alum I have loved the architecture and style of the tower for some time, however I'm wondering if "clock tower" is the best description of it. from the original plans of the building (displayed in the old Administrative Conference Room) it does not appear that the tower was ever intended to house a clock (its architecture also does not suggest. From talking to Archivists and librarians at City (Martha Wilson and George Mosley) it appears as though this tower was originally placed as a simply aesthetic addition as well as a primitive form of cooling (to funnel hot air up and out of the building). I am wondering if there is a name for such a structure that would be a more suitable description for it.

Ed Burns removed?[edit]

Why was the reference to Ed Burns in the Notable Teachers section removed?

Vandalism?[edit]

The mention of the vandalism of Baltimore City College in the Castle on the Hill section, although noteworthy, may only be of ephemeral importance. Perhaps create a recent news section to highlight current happenings at the castle on the hill. Golem88991 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, the vandalism may be very much part of a deeply rooted and growing problem in and around the Castle on the Hill. Local TV coverage of the vandalism this summer clearly showed the name of a locally prominent street gang written in red paint at the scene of the crime. Incidence of gang graffitti inside the building has been growing over the past two to three years as well.RadconPU83 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)RadconPU83[reply]

Notable Alumni[edit]

This comment may sound hypocritical considering I have added a number of alumni recently to the list, but maybe it is time to limit down the list of alumni to people who we think made extremely significant contributions. For example, Martin Rodbell, who won the Nobel Prize is clearly a notable alumnus, the same is true of John Wheeler, who is a well known theoretical physicist. However, there are many people, who only have local fame, for example Gregory Kane or Judge Hammerman. I do want to say though that it is not simply an issue of whether or not the individuals have a wikipedia article. Though in the case of the examples I chose the individuals, who I would keep do have wikipedia articles that does not need to be the case. Golem88991 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think the list now is fine it is certainly much smaller than others I have seen and contains a better mix of nationally and locally renowned individuals.--209.163.102.107 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Integration and the admission of female pupils?[edit]

Something about these topics needs to be add to the page. Preferably by someone, who actually knows something about these topics. Golem88991 05:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Person?[edit]

This new edition to the list of notable alumni seems to be a reach. He only played four games, which is not even a full season. I think he should be removed and I will do so unless something notable about him can be shown. I do not think we should pad the list of alumni. The school has an impressive list and does not need every individual, who ever graduated from the school. Golem88991 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that John Sykes should be removed for the same reason. Golem88991 05:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advocating for Person and Sykes After checking the guidlines for notability, one phrase convinced me that Person and Sykes were at least notable for their high school. While they may not be deserving of their own Wikipage, they did at least make it to the top of their profession. There are only a handful of Baltimore high school athletes who have been drafted and played in the NFL. I think making it that far is making it to the top of their profession, at least as their high school is concerned. Additionally, they both played in that 1965 game where City beat Poly 52-6. It is arguably the most important victory City has ever had because that team apparently received a national ranking and no City football team has received one since. No one else from that team played in the NFL, so it is arguable that they were the best on the team. If they were the best on the best team, it logically follows that they are at least among the best footballers that ever played at City. They may not be notable in terms of NFL players, but along with Tom Gatewood, they are the only City College players that made it that far. Thanks for your opinion, I respect all the work you have done on the article. I hope that you keep them, but I will respect your decision as you have a great deal more experience with Wikipedia that I do. I will endeavor to continue to contribute and look forward to your constructive criticism.67knight·talk·00:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67knight, your argumentation is compelling. Even if they only managed to play in a few games on the professional level, that in itself was a feat. I agree with you. I will not remove them from the page. Thank you for your input. Golem88991 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principals List[edit]

Neither Dr. Joseph Antenson, nor Mrs. Jean Johnson are listed. Both served as principal during my time there, the former as a regular principal, the latter as acting principal before Joseph Wilson's tenure. I don't have the exact dates and I don't want to add them without any sort of verifiable information. I haven't been able to find any. Can somebody help? --WriterThesp77 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had not put them on because I was waiting for the dates. Someone was going to get them for me at the next alumni meeting on the first Monday in June.(But I will put their names in anyway)67knight·talk· 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antenson's name is not on the formal list of principals available in the library Jean Johnson's is and her portrait is also displayed however Antenson is never mentioned. I don't believe he was a formal principal as the list goes from Solomon Laucsh to Johnson then to wilson--Bcc07 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's bizarre. He was principal for, IIRC, two or so years. --WriterThesp77 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the library on Thursday that there is a 2 year gap i btwn the periods of service of Jean johnson it read something like

1978-1988Solomon Lausch 1988-1990 Jean Johnson 1992-1994Jean Johnson 1994-2004 Joseph Wilson--Bcc07 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, who is going to solve this mystery and come back with the correct listing?67knight·talk· 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to do it, but I'm going to add to the mystery too. The year before Timothy Dawson took over, City had another acting principal. If I'm not mistaken, she was a Ph.D. who normally was a district administrator of some sort. --WriterThesp77 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

great, that's just great.Marylandstater 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should add interim principals I will check out other schools and universities but I think for this page it will be difficult to keep consistent 1) because we dont have a list of every interim principal and 2) there were 2 in the same year before Dawson arrived Wortham and Scofield it simply complicates the list. My reccomendation is against interims--Bcc07 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Is BCC the third oldest high school?[edit]

This is a dispute about whether Baltimore City College is the "third oldest" high school in the United States, or if Barringer High School is.--Thx2005 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • Barringer High School of Newark, NJ, also claims to be the third-oldest public high school, having also been founded in 1838. Can you help clear up this discrepancy?--72.90.229.66 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, according to the guidelines clearly outlined in Wikipedia's citing policies, there is a large amount of evidence that suggests that Barringer High School was established in 1838, thereby predating BCC. Its website supports this claim [1] as does the official school district page [2]. Unless there is sourced proof from the members of the BCC Wikiproject, or any other Wikipedians, that proves:

Barringer was not created/chartered/commissioned and/or founded in 1838.
BCC was founded before Barringer.
The info on the school's/district website is incorrect.
A third party has identified the founding years of both schools that is supported by other sourced evidence.

Then there is absolutely no logical reason to keep calling BCC the third oldest high school in the United States. If you have a problem with it, take the issue up with a Wikipedia admin.

NOTE I am NOT a BCC/Poly graduate, alum, attendee, faculty member or in ANY WAY affiliated with Baltimore City College, I'm just putting the facts straight. --Thx2005 19
31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


  • THX, I don't mean to insult you, but it's hard because this argument you make is extremely weak. Their website or their district's website saying that they are the third oldest high school in the country is the equivalent of City's website saying the same thing (and if I'm not mistaken, it does), BCPSS's site saying the same thing, or even Wikipedia saying the same thing.

Since I can start a home school and make the same claim, unless you have some references (again, not them referencing themselves) for them, then they have zero claim that should be used in a publication proporting to be an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia's only rules for citation are that somebody make a claim and put it on a website somewhere, then Wikipedia is surely destined to be nothing but BS. I believe those of us who have been tending to this page and adding links and references other than those that refer to City and to BCPSS, have been hoping to include actual, verifiable evidence for claims about City. If you can't produce the same, your "additions" should to be taken out, period.

Here's some references for you that say that Baltimore City College is third oldest:

http://www.examiner.com/a-690996~Baltimore_City_College_honored_as_official_landmark.html

http://wjz.com/local/local_story_115213044.html

http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_240140705.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/community/guide/bal-rg-learnoverview,0,5643451.story

http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2000/01/31/focus2.html

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/9675620/detail.html

I'm sure if I look harder than I could sitting behind the computer on a hot day, I could find more, and these aren't even the best references. I willingly acknowledge that. But these are all publications and organizations that are neither Baltimore City College, nor BCPSS. These are organizations that, when presented with actual evidence to counter City's claim, would surely make the correction and print a retraction, because they need to maintain accuracy so as not to undermine their credibility in the public's eyes. They wouldn't just print BS because it hurts them in the pocketbook. Get one of them to print a retraction and you might actually have something.

Others have posted even better evidence in the article itself concerning City's establishment.

You can't just say that there is "there is a large amount of evidence" that backs up Barringer's claim and then reference their own website as the evidence. That is SPECIOUS reasoning. Where is this evidence other than they themselves saying so? Any reputable writer or researcher knows that self-referential evidence needs to be backed up. You can't say that their "evidence" is themselves saying so and then put the onus on us to bring actual evidence to refute theirs. In this case, there's nothing to refute.

Pure and simple INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

On the web, I only see the Barringer school, their district, a library, not-as-reputable publications (such as other web based encyclopedae, especially ones that copy from Wikipedia), and individual people making this claim. Some actual references from actual reputable sources and you might have a point and an argument (Where are that place's archives???). I'd gladly ask any of the above sources for actual evidence to back up their claim other than City's website or press packet.

Again, others have posted links to archival information concerning City's establishment. I want the same. Until you get some other references other than Barringer itself or its district, you have no facts to get straight. Get some and I'll concede the point

And on a non-rhetorical note, I graduated from City over ten years ago, so why is it that only now, after all the years that City had been around since before I got there, and after over a decade since I've left, am I only now hearing of this Barringer High School? Did they not know in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950, 1940, and however long City has been promoting itself as the country's third oldest high school, that City was doing so? Why is this being brought up now and only on the Internet?

Also, City's standing as third oldest is listed because it's an historical note. The Baltimore diocese of the RC Church is the oldest in the United States. The Washington Monument in Baltimore is the oldest Washington Monument in the country. Those are listed as such on Wikipedia, so I don't see what the problem is. I've seen Boston Latin and Philadelphia Central listed as the oldest and second oldest respectively, on this very site. I don't see what the problem is with City being listed as such.

--WriterThesp77 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • First off, those sources that you cited are from the media, and all they do is base their arguments off of websites like Wikipedia and other reputable encyclopedic evidence. In fact, the ONLY thing in any of those articles that actually says anything about City being the third oldest is the sentence "City is the third oldest high school, established in 1839". Just because they have that sentence (or a sentence like it), does NOT MAKE IT TRUE IF THEY RELY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT FOUNDED MEANS THE SAME AS CHARTERED.

You wanna post some links to WJZ and a couple newspapers? Here's a few sources to appease you:

BARRINGER/NEWARK WEBSITES
  • Website about Barringer - [3]
  • Barringer Alumni Page - [4]
  • Newark School District - [5]
THIRD PARTY WEBSITES
  • Inspire Magazine, an article written about an alumni (Dr. Lee Jones) - [6]
  • Newark Public Library - [7]
BOOKS
  • Making It on Broken Promises, By Cornell West and Dr. Lee Jones - [8] Search "third oldest" in the right hand column to see the page number about Barringer
  • Retaining African Americans in Higher Education, By Dr. Lee Jones
NOTE Lee Jones is the president of Inspire Magazine, and has written several biographical books, and books about race. None of the claims he has made about Barringer being the third oldest has been contested, nor refuted/disapproved.

Fact is, City is not the third oldest "created" high school, but rather the third oldest "chartered" high school in the United States. That much is true. I really do not think that we need to waste time arguing about which was founded first, because obviously Barringer was CREATED in 1838, and wasn't CHARTERED until 1899. The problem is that the school administration and the media has not made that distinction clear, neither has Wikipedia or those apart of the BCC WikiProject. Instead of wasting time arguing, I think we should agree that the sources you provided were operating under the assumption that FOUNDED is a substitute for CHARTERED. And that is just as INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, because we have not made that distinction clear. It's probably the same reason that the issue was never pushed in your tenure at City because the assumption is that FOUNDED = CHARTERED.

We, as editors, have a responsibility to make that distinction EXTREMELY CLEAR so that problems like this don't come up, and people don't get their feelings hurt, and BCC grads don't come in complaining about their precious "Castle on the Hill". --Thx2005 00:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Opened but not chartered until 1899? Care to explain why this should count? Care to provide page numbers or quotes? Care to provide a bibliography? Why should a non-chartered school count? How can a non-chartered school --one without a charter or mandate from a governmental body-- be considered a "public" high school? If it wasn't chartered, then was it private? How was it run?

I've already said hat referring to the school or district's site is NOT evidence. If you don't know that self-referential evidence is no evidence at all within research, then I just don't know what to tell you. Really, I don't.

Inspire Magazine isn't exactly a reputable publicationn nor is it unbiased. Where's your information from the Star-Ledger or maybe even the New York Times? Get it. If Barringer really is the 3rd oldest, the Star-Ledger should have written -something- about that fact at some point.

Post excerpts from those books. Let's see where he got his information from.

My feelings aren't hurt. So you've had one graduate who founds a magazine and writes a book and says that -his- school is the 3rd oldest. And you call that unbiased, 3rd party evidence? Look, if I write a book that says that Baltimore City College is, intellectual honesty DEMANDS that other sources be considered because I am not unbiased. Do you understand this?

You're talking about people having their feelings hurt. I'm talking about providing true, verifiable information. Again, the school's site is not that. The site of the Newark Library is not that.

Your google books page won't come up. Why don't you copy and paste whatever it says in here?

I will agree with nothing you've said until I see something else from an unbiased source that will confirm this. As soon as you can do so, we can start to have a conversation and talk about what "we as editors" have a responsibility to do. Until then, you're not operating from a position of true honesty. --WriterThesp77 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Look, there's no way to escape the fact that Barringer was created one year before City. The reason that it's never been pressed because they rank the schools by the year they're chartered, not actually created. We both know however that this problem will continually come up OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Possibly with some people who want to vandalize the page. All I want it the City aritcle to aknowledge the problem, so that it can silence some potential arguments that could arise in the future. You simply want to ignore the problem, instead of addressing it.

I think that it's completely reasonable to say that City is the third oldest (by charted year), but some have said that Barringer High School predates it by its created year, even though it wasn't chartered. I also think that sourcing the school site is just as reasonable (unless you're just gonna call the school district/Newark library liars).That ONE SENTENCE shuts up a lot of Poly grads/students and people who want to vandalize the article in the future.--Thx2005 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thx, the reality is that the first public high school in Newark was not created until 1855 and Barringer did not come into existence until 1899. The evidence is clearly spelled out on the Newark Public Library's website. It states that, "In 1855 the first public high school opened, and the first large high school, Barringer, opened in 1899." [9]

As this is the only third party source, which actually provides a date for the establishment of Barringer, it is clear that Barringer cannot even claim to be the third oldest founded high school.--Golem88991 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not deny the bias of my opinion, since I am a City graduate. However, I do not find the claim by Barringer to be convincing for several reasons.

  • First, the only sites that make refernece to Barringer being founded in 1838 are either from the school or alumni association, or websites that cite the school or alumni as their source.
  • Second, whereas Boston English, Central High School, and City can all point to specific government action that brought them into existence, Barringer cannot. For me at least, this raises doubts as to whether or not the school Nathan Hedges opened was in fact a public school. Furthermore, I would note that even if Mr. Hedges opened up a school that was free to the public that does not constitute what is commonly known as a "public school".
  • Third, the Newark Public Library site, which Thx claims to support his position, lists the opening date of Barringer as 1899. You can refer to my above comment for the specific quote. NOTE: That is not the chartered date that is the opening date.
  • Fourth, the Newark Public Library site states that the first public high school in Newark was opened in 1855. That is 16 years after the opening of Baltimore City College.
  • Fifth, simple statements that Barringer is the third oldest will not suffice. Evidence must be provided to prove the veracity of their claims. The burden of proof here should be on Barringer to provide a third party source that provides evidence of their 1838 founding. I have already provide a third party source that begs to differ.

I do not think the above argument about the validity of City's claim is a bad thing. It proves that Wikipedia is succeeding in bringing people together to discuss the veracity of factual claims. City would not have known about Barringer and vice versa without Wikipedia. However, in this instance I do think the evidence is on the side of Baltimore City College. Golem88991 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT, why do I get remanded for trying to increase clarity by getting a warning from some administrators. It's obvious that there is a need for a SENTENCE in the goddamn article about Barringer. Hell, in Barringer's article there's a whole section, and NO ONE IN THE BCC WIKIPROJECT IS COMPLAINING. This entire BCC Wikiproject is full of shit. Your not worried about anything else but making the school look good, and nothing about increasing clarity about the school's history. Fuck this project, and fuck this article. You wanna make a Wikipedia Brochure for City, then go right ahead you elitist assholes, I don't want to be apart of it. Thx2005 01:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Can the article be locked so that we don't have to keep seeing references to Barringer High School in it? At the very least, can those who feel it so important to mention that particular school in the BCC article, actually work on that one and give it some meat as opposed to simply using this one to promote their school? This issue seems to be getting petty now that the previous user could not provide any third party information.

American Football Rivalry[edit]

Does anyone have the year that the last City-Poly game was played at Memorial Stadium? I feel like this information, while probably not of great importance, would help make the section flow better. A quick googling didn't turn anything up. Pcarter7 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, that was 1992. In the 1993-1994 school year, I believe, the BCPSS schools switched from the MSA to the MPSSAA. City took on Frederick Douglass of PG County in the 1st round of the playoffs that season, a game we unfortunately did not win. Curt Anderson got some MTA buses chartered for us to go down and see the game. --151.204.209.219 04:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore City College Speech and Debate[edit]

I propose a new article, called "Baltimore City College Speech and Debate" consisting of what is currently called City College forensics on the Baltimore City College page. It is now big enough to have its own page like the alumni page and it is the one part of the City page that keeps growing. The new title also reflects how the debate teams are referred to at the school. Any comments?67knight·talk· 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni Association[edit]

Should there be a mention/section of the Alumni Association on the BCC page--68.166.47.26 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I am proposing a new article for the History of Baltimore City College. The current section history has become too long to be apart of the main article and deserves its own article at this point. Golem88991 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools Assessment[edit]

Agree B ... but you should be thinking about GA ...you are close Victuallers 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

This is a fine article. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

  • A section on the school's finances would improve the page - fundraising, budget, etc.
  • It would be easier on the reader if the article referred to the school by only one name rather than switching between three different names.
  • The prose could be improved still further with a good copy editor:
  • EX: City College's Tudor Gothic building lasted until 1892 when it was undermined by the construction of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad tunnel from Camden Station to Mount Royal Station, and collapsed. - "undermined" doesn't really work here
  • EX: Both programs provide students with the opportunity to engage in rigorous learning so as to better prepare them for the challenges of college and offer some students the opportunity to earn college credit. - wordy
  • EX: In 1902 the students took the effort to make Lacrosse a permanent fixture of school. - wordy
  • Individual years are not usually linked, unless there is a specific page for them such as 1997 in sports.
  • However, in the early 1990s Principal Antenson removed the two tier system because he believed it to be racially discriminatory. - Could you expand on this a bit?
  • Having the lyrics of the school song seems overkill to me.
  • The "Popular culture" reference should be integrated into another section. One sentence does not a section make.

If you have any questions about this review, please let me know. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principals List[edit]

I think we should move this list to the history article. Other history pages included this list, such as the History of Michigan State University. Golem88991 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band[edit]

I attempted an edit but I believe that unless sufficient sources can be found this section should be deleted or minimized.--Bcc07 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the IP address, which is the source of this edit, has been a source of a large deal of vandalism, some of which has been directed in the past at the City College article. Golem88991 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I made some edits to the section on the band, mostly for spelling, grammar, and readability.

Statements like "With their signature Big Band sound, they are still one of the top high school jazz bands in the area" need to be backed up with factual evidence such as awards, or they fall into opinion, which I believe we are striving to avoid.

Other issues:

Was the band started in "the late 1950's" or in 1954, specifically? This issue is unclear. Same issue with the Marching Knights. 1993 is -not- the late 1990's. Either it was started in the "early 1990's" or in some specific year (the referencing of such would be better than just the early or late portion of some decade). It was really bad since the article says that Mr. Wallace came in 1994 and developed the band, but somehow the band had 64 members in 1993. Way too muddy.

If possible, somebody please provide references for the information concerning the band's standing in competitions and festivals.

Since the years that previous band directors assumed the position, the year the current director's tenure started should be mentioned.

BTW, I haven't had much time to log into Wikipedia. I'll be back more often now, mostly to do copy editing such as I've done above. Other members clearly have more access to information about City than I do :) --WriterThesp77 08:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marching Band Image Size[edit]

User:Knightgal and I disagree over the size of this image. I have argued that this image should conform with the suggestion of WP:MOS, which discourages specifying the size of images. Knightgal has argued that the image falls under the the readability exception of the guideline. I personally, do not think that the image is any more illustrative of the marching band in the larger size of the image. However, I want to open up a discussion on the matter so that we can avoid an edit war. Golem88991 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from User:Knightgal to whom it may concern[edit]

Some of my students were looking over the Baltimore City College page and wondered why the band was not in the article, especially since the debate team, the choir and the yearbook were. So we created an article. I also noticed on your project page, you were looking for more images. We found this one and scanned it in. Then Mr. Golem88991 reduced it so small you couldn't make out much on the picture, so here we are. I really don't see the big deal here, maybe its me, but Mr. Golem88991 downsized the picture because of the manual of style, yet I think there are exceptions that really don't hurt the page. The following have pictures well in excess of the 180px and no MOS objections have been raised there: Stanford University Marching Band (300px), The Ohio State University Marching Band (250px), Coral Springs High School (350px), Pride of Dixie Marching Band (500px), Purdue All-American Marching Band (250px), Cornell Big Red Marching Band (260px), Dartmouth College Marching Band(400px), Kansas State University Marching Band (400px) and the UCLA Band (300px). Since there are clear exceptions to the authority you cited, I am going to change the picture back to 280px. The way it is now, the words on the banner are not readable, the faces aren't seeable. A larger picture clearly enhances the section.Knightgal 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to make it clear that I did not shrink the image. All I did was remove the parameter that specifies the size per WP:MOS. This makes the image the default size that is specified in a users preferences, generally this is 180px. Second, the mere fact that others have chosen to ignore the MoS is not a justification for ignoring it in this article. Third, the only band article to have featured article status is the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, which has conformed to the MoS by not specifying the size of its images. Thanks, Golem88991 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral- she does have a point though, any smaller you can't tell one uniform from the other, on the other hand if you click on the picture, you can see it just fine. 67knight 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golem is right the image size needs to conform just as all the rest on the page the goal here is to get to featured article. --Bcc07 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it at the size it is. The size of a picture in an article will not affect its featured article status. The Manual of Style is a guideline, not an absolute. When a picture calls for a larger size it is allowed. For example, the University of Michigan is a featured article, there are 13 pictures in it and only one is 180px, the rest are 250 px or more.Michigan State Universityis also a featured article and 20 of its 23 images are 250px or more.Marylandstater 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the manual of style is not a guideline for featured articles it is a requirement. WP:WIAFA criterion two is the article "complies with the manual of style". With regards to articles that are FA and do not conform, there are several possible scenarios. The first scenario is that the manual of style has changed and FAs are often not updated to comply with the current manual of style if they are not brought up for featured article review. The second scenario is a poor review of the article when it was nominated as a FAC. Editors do make oversights. The third scenario is that the images were changed after it attained FA status. I could go on, but I think you get the point. All that I am arguing though is that we should not be hedging our bets on a poor review. We should conform with the manual of style if our goal is FA. If it is not FA, do what you want. Golem88991 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also an image of the band in formation seems much more appropriate than one from a specific year. I would reccomend either we find one from the most current team or we go for a formation.--Bcc07 13:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Change image should conform with the rest of the images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.75.201 (talk) [reply]

Website Link[edit]

Looks like the link to the school's site is bad now. Anybody know off hand if there's a new one, or if somebody forgot to pay the hosting/domain bill or something? --WriterThesp77 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site's back up. Looks like they paid the domain or hosting bill. Anyway, I came across a link to the school's PTSA and added it. --WriterThesp77 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Publications[edit]

What's up with the student publication being added and then subtracted from the page?

Also, I remembered earlier this evening that the student-run literary magazine, Echoes, hadn't been mentioned. I don't want to add anything about it until I can get something concrete. Can anybody else do some research into it as well?

--WriterThesp77 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that echoes no longer exists. Golem88991 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are we adding links in the link section to the student-run publications' sites? --WriterThesp77 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of songs[edit]

Could someone please advise on the copyright status of the song lyrics included in this article. According to Wikipedia:Copyrights In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is generally the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. The date of the author's death is not given. Did he die after 1936? Dahliarose 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is from Copyright, not Wikipedia:Copyrights. And it isn't exactly correct. The current US law (at long last in agreement with the Berne Convention) is that copyright is automatic and lasts until 70 years after the author's death. But that's only been true since 1989. See Copyright#How long copyright lasts for more details, but the odds are that the copyrights on these lyrics have expired long ago. RossPatterson 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the songs has a named, author Eugene W. Milby. The song was written in 1923 so it is quite possible that the song is still in copyright as I would have thought it unlikely that 70 years will have passed since his death. He is quite possibly still alive. The other song printed here has no author's name so it depends on the date of first performance. These facts need to be established to ensure that these songs are out of copyright. If the status cannot be ascertained then the best approach would be to remove the songs altogether. The Wikipedia licence allows reproduction of articles around the world so my understanding is that it is not just the US law which has to be taken into consideration. Dahliarose 08:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Milby's City Forever, if published in 1923, would have been copyrighted for only 28 years, not 70 years past the author's death (see Copyright#How long copyright lasts, 2nd paragraph). It would have entered the public domain in 1952 or 1980, depending on whether Milby renewed the copyright at its first expiration. It is also entirely possible that neither song is copyrighted. Prior to 1989, US copyright was not automatic - one actually had to claim it at first publication. Failure to do so placed the work in the public domain. The English Wikipedia operates according to US copyright law (see Wikipedia:Copyright#Fair use materials and special requirements), so that's the only one that matters for this purpose. Lastly, the Wikipedia practice on copyright is described at Wikipedia:Copyright#If you find a copyright infringement, and can be summed up as "err on the side of protecting the author's rights". So if you truly believe one or the other of these songs is a copyright infringement, even after all I've written, you should delete them. RossPatterson 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all very complicated. I'm not sure how one could possibly check if the copyright was renewed or not. Milby's song is so short that I concede it is highly unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of protecting the copyright. The inclusion of the song in the article probably qualifies as fair use so I think it's safe to leave it in. I'm more concerned about the other song as there is no reference for it so we have no idea of the name of the author or the date of publication. I will therefore err on the side of caution and remove the song. The songs are in any case of no interest to anyone not connected with the school. Dahliarose 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The page seems to be getting cluttered with images. In general, I would argue that images are good for the page, but at some point there are too many images and I think the page may have exceeded its capacity for images. Not every section needs an image and unless the image actually adds something substantively to the page it may be unnecessary.

I also would like to renew my objection to the resizing of images. With the proliferation of images on the page, resizing images such as the band picture makes the page look crowded. Golem88991 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about images are puzzling, especially when one considers the fact that you have put more images on the page than anyone else. Are you saying that images are okay so long as you put them there? 67knight 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I do not rule out the possibility whatsoever that some of the pictures that should be removed are ones that I have added. All I am saying is that I think we have reached a point in which adding more pictures could make the article look cluttered. Furthermore, your comment fails to address the issue. You have chosen a personal attack rather than addressing the issue at hand. If you do not feel the page is cluttered, then say so and give me the reason why. Alleging that I am a hypocrite, does not add anything to the debate. So please contribute, but do so constructively, and if you want an image that I have put on the page taken off, then say so and give me a reason why. Thanks, Golem88991 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Golem's assertions the page is becoming to cramped. Therefore, I move for the removal of the Band Photo, the hall of fame photo and potentially the photo labeled Baltimore City College, 2007 in the history section.Bcc07 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead and problematic links[edit]


Baccalaurate degrees[edit]

Could someone possibly provide some clarification about the baccalaureate degree. The article says: "Despite its name, the school is not a college as it lacks the authority to confer baccalaureate degrees." I'm not familiar with the US school system so I find this sentence somewhat baffling. I cannot find any reference to baccalaureate degrees and I think they need to be explained. The baccalaureate is normally a school qualification not a further education qualification so how can the qualification be a degree? Do some schools in the US continue to educate students from 18 to 21 so that they continue their further education at school rather than moving to university? The use of the word college is possibly misleading here too as college (in the UK at least) is used in the naming of schools but I presume that college in this instance means a university/institute of further education. Or is College perhaps a specific type of US school which offers a particular baccalaureate programme? Dahliarose (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baccalaureate degree is another way to refer to a Bachelor of Arts in the United States. If it is a source of confusion I will replace baccalaureate with Bachelor of Arts. With respect to your second series of questions, in the US a college generally refers to an institution that has the ability to grant undergraduate degrees. Thus, the school is not a college, since it does not have the power to grant students Bachelor degrees. Golem88991 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Bachelor of Arts would be much clearer as baccalaurate degree is certainly something I've never come across in the UK so I imagine the term will be unfamiliar to most international readers. It might be best to change the word college as well to "institute of further education" or university as the word college has lots of different meanings and is a source of confusion to readers like me outside the US. It certainly hadn't occurred to me that because the school was called a college it might be mistaken for a university. Lots of schools in the UK are called college (eg, Cheltenham College, Dulwich College, etc. Dahliarose (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have wikilinked college to the American English usage in the article on the term college, but if you feel that it still needs further clarification then I will change it to "institution of higher education". Golem88991 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it might be best to leave the sentence out of the introduction altogether. It seems somewhat unnecessary to me. The intro makes it perfectly clear that Baltimore is a school. Or would American readers be confused if there was not some sort of explanation? The subject of these baccalaureate degrees is also mentioned in the history section which perhaps needs some modification. Do you not have Bachelor of Science degrees in the US as well or does baccalaureate refer specifically to arts degrees? Dahliarose (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

baccalaureate refers to Bachelor degrees in general (including arts and science).Having gone to the high school, I do find that people are often confused when I say "Baltimore City College". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.85.255 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV[edit]

There's a deletion review of all alumni categories for US high schools, including Category:Baltimore City College alumni. Occuli (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore City College#Principals[edit]

Considering this is TFA, this section needs additional citations (as indicated there). Not sure how this got through, since the tags have been there for over a year. I tried but failed to find refs for two of them; any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Internal Consistency: Dating Oldest Schools.... Again[edit]

A major problem exists when a FA/GA such as this exists in direct contradiction to another article - List of the oldest public high schools in the United States, which has BCC at #34 and Barringer as #30. Much of the referenced article is sourced. It is perhaps a matter of definition - "public," "oldest" and so on - but the claim that BCC is the "third oldest public school" is problematic when more than 30 clearly older schools are making the same claim. Resolution needed. Sensei48 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA[edit]

This article has obvious typos, an unbalanced lead, unclear sentences and unsourced material. It no longer meets the criteria for a featured article. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan, thanks for pointing out some of the problems with the City College article. It had been heavily edited by a few well meaning folk, but after reading the most recent edition, I had to agree with you. I've cut the lead and eliminated much of the unsourced material. I will be doing more throughout the rest of this month. 67Knight 03:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltimore City College. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltimore City College. 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: 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) 21:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baltimore City College. 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) 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baltimore City College. 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) 23:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baltimore City College. 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) 08:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltimore City College. 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) 16:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Baltimore City College. 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) 14:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltimore City College. 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) 01:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns[edit]

Hi everyone, I am concerned that this article does meet the featured article criteria anymore. Here are some issues I found in the article:

  • The lede needs expansion to summarise all sections of the article.
  • The history section is long, considering there is an article dedicated to this topic, and it doesn't include any information after 1978.
  • Student enrollment stops at 2015 and should include a more recent year.
  • The Extracurricular section reads as promotional and puffery. I also think it is needlessly detailed and much of it can be removed.
  • There are many people listed in the Notable faculty members section that are not notable by Wikipedia's standards and should be removed. The remaining information should be rewritten as prose and combined with the Principals section
  • The Principals section should also remove non-notable people, combined with the Notable faculty section and rewritten as prose.

Is someone willing to bring this article back to featured article standards? If not, I will nominate this for featured article review. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also had some time to review the article and have the following comments, to add onto the set from Z1720. This does seem to be a particularly noteworthy school with many past editors that have worked to bring this page up to (and maintain) its FA status, so I'm really hoping there are people available to help polish up the article once more.

Deltawk (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baltimore_City_College&oldid=1205846373"