Talk:Northside College Preparatory High School/Archive 1

Comment

--75.34.173.210 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) I don't know how watched this article is, but it's kind of clear that a member of Acadec wrote this, since I attended that school and it is far from the most noteworthy things about it.[reply]

I look in on it now and then to make sure that nothing too outrageous goes on.

A national acadec championship is a worthy thing to note. Furthermore, blatant insults to Northside alumni really don't belong here since we dont know who might stumble onto this page. It's important to keep the image of the school up, especially in a public venue such as this.

~Arichgh

But whoa, why did you take out the part about Mr. Mather and Mr. Giles leaving and Mr. Hampton passing away? That's important, they were all like "founding fathers" of the school!

Agreed--that needs to be reverted, their leaving and Hampton's passing; moreover, I have to say that being on the team that went to nationals, I'd like to think that the school is not really just defined by that. You could set up a separate section discussing that, but it seems vain to have that in the main body of the article. Also, comments like "Northside's 23 Advanced Placement classes also place its curriculum among the most thorough and challenging academic programs in the nation." make this jazz read like a promo piece from Northside's PR department; good representation isn't Wikipedia's job, unless we mean accurate. Let the facts speak for themselves, eh? Unless, that is, you have some article thoroughly vetting this through rankings in some sort of national or accredited publication other than the school newsletter.

I dunno, I thought it deserved to be in the main body because it was something that brought people's attention to Northside as a contender. But if you want to move it and make it a recent event, be my guest. Oh, and I changed the AP sentence to make it sound, I think, a little less like a brochure.

Ok, first of all, more Northside students called Mr. Giles "Juice" than those that called him "Jack." Also, I fail to see how he is "innovative." I also don't like the unwritten policy that it's okay to be opinionated if you're in favor of someone... No one blinks that Mr. Giles is called "innovative" without even a hint as to how he innovated, and yet something like "bland," which I can verify firsthand as an accurate assessment of his teaching presence, causes "Aric" to despotically censor this page to conform to his happy views.

Whoever "ohnoitsjamie" is, they removed vital portions of this entry that are quite important in describing the school, notably my addition of a section addressing block scheduling and the Colloquium program. I am mortified by the gestapo running this website and their disregard for actual, reasonable discussion of problems. They simply erase what they don't agree with.

The "block scheduling" was only reverted because that edit also included your point-of-view assessment of a teacher as "notoriously bland." Oh no itsJamie 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't you simply edit out the "notoriously bland" part? Also, as a Northside student, I can attest to the fact that nearly every Giles student I have talked to will say he is bland. In album reviews, it's okay to say an album met with "widespread acclaim" or was "panned by critics," and this is no different. Also, enough with your fancy links, logos, and fonts. No one is impressed. ==65.43.127.235 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the piece to conform to the neutral point-of-view policy regarding Mr. Giles, while retaining the colloquium section and updating the current events. I hope this matter can be considered closed. --65.43.127.235 06:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is fine, except for small section discussing the teachers merits and flaws. While you did attempt to write the passage in a NPOV fashion, there's no need to catalog student opinions of teachers in Wikipedia. You won't find such comments in other articles about schools (but if you do, they should be reverted as well). Oh no itsJamie 06:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we are claiming that Mr. Giles is an integral founder of the school, I think an investigation into the actual views on the matter is quite relevant. Also, I do not appreciate the way you are treating me. You use "attempt to write," as if all I can do is mimic your excellent example. Exactly who are you to determine what goes into this article, and what examinations should be made within? 65.43.127.235 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend for the comment to be taken as an insult. As far as your complaint that I'm not treating you well; I'm trying to be civil with you, but I think your comments here and on my talk page [1] speak for themselves. Oh no itsJamie 17:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read both a. the comments left on Jamie's talk page and b. all[and I do mean every one] versions and edits to this page, I think I'll say this much: Jamie's comment, while pompous, was probably not intended to incense[hate to say it, but unless you're either a demonstrably apt instructor or performer of aught you've critiqued, remarks about their attempt can and will come off as aggravating.]. I do think Jamie has a point about needlessly hostile remarks on his talk page.

However.

Having been a member of that school, I will say that there is an aggregate of opinions concerning Giles, and prominent among them was that his teaching method was considered bland; moreover, saying that nothing need be taken into account concerning critical opinions [at least as students regard teachers] is absurd, since Wikipedia can and will often take into account praise of an institution[clearly even in this article which you so closely watch you haven't touched the portion I so far consider most objectionable(the mentioning of Acadec's achievement in the first paragraph). There was an earlier complaint of mine concerning a sentence that sounded like an advertisement, but the author of that one has since changed it.], and these accolades are considered "verifiable" because they are published. It's ridiculous that, since these critiques are not lent the credence that follows publication, we do not acknowledge them. Incidentally, we can't let one or two testimonies from former students [whose status as alumni is similarly unverifiable] attempt to speak for the school.

Still, just because there is no particular spark or genesis that would allow discussion of someone's quality as an instructor[recall Ms. Guest's somewhat recent brush with notoriety], this doesn't mean that it's horrifically POV to discuss these things. For example, given the near schoolwide affection of one sort or another for Dr. Lalley, I don't think it would be improper to devote a portion to prevailing opinions of his effectiveness as a principal[See Lawrence Summers as an example.] Of further interest in that example, one of the contributers even added a bit about an anonymous online poll, which is about similarly verifiable as any of the claims made prior.

Then again, I thought the extended discussion of Giles in that portion was really disproportionate when one could've discussed the fear Mather inspired or the jovial nature of Dr. Lalley, as well as those two being far more important in the initial establishment of the school. And if you're going to discuss Giles, discuss his Tashkent initiatives; that's a bit more relevant. Or how many faculty were plucked from working at Schurz or graduates thereof[at least seven to ten.].

ps: I think anon has a point about your deciding what is essentially inappropriate with regards to a school of which you know nothing; while anyone can edit, it's not suggested that everyone edit--moreover, if you're going to apply for adminship, you should know by now how to edit out something while retaining something of value.

-russ.

As of today, I'm not watching it anymore. Good luck, Oh no itsJamie^Talk 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good riddance, ya piece ah shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.185.145 (talk • contribs)

Current Events

Does it make sense to even bother listing departures of teachers? Why list Giles at all, while ignoring the departures of teachers like Muriel, Guest, Bobendrier, Wellman, Stabler, etc etc? Aren't real current events, like the current budget crisis and the threats it poses to the pioneering Northside programs like Colloquium and block scheduling? ALso, whoever "moderates" this page is doing so with a blind eye for what is "proper." There's a lot of truth behind the vulgarities people have posted here, and what is here and considered "good" is woefully out-of-date and bland. -SHK

To be fair, a lot of what passes for "good" in the context of, oh, say, a high school would be bland, if we take that to mean not generally exciting. As for moderation, wikipedia doesn't seem to really "do" that, outside of admin; anyone can "watch" a page and edit when they see fit. On that note, to whomever thought writing something like "magnificent" about any teacher there is appropriate, that would be dumb. Ditto for the remark about the newspaper[whose only credit can be the occasional april fools edition.]. My spiteful remark about the teachers listed or suggested regarding their departure is that they are a. insignificant, b. incompetent, or c. I don't like them.

I kid about that last one.

In fact, I kid about the whole thing insofar as applying a and b beyond the first two in that list. The rest stands, though.

--russ.

ps: Unless there's a better version of the hoof beat jazz in recent edits, I'm taking that out; if, Navid, you feel so inclined, you can write a non-crazy sounding concise summary of the paper. Also, being an anonymous douche only really works when you don't sign in with a username that also includes, say, your real name when you went to an incredibly small school. Additionally, it pains me to say that all the douches who show up and write something retarded are from this school, ensuring its only real association with the phrase magnet will lend any credibility because no one states what kind of person it attracts. :/

Perhaps, someone should mention why the class rank was taken out... "Due to a GPA scale disproportionate to most other high schools in America, hurting the chances of college applicants at Northside for attending the academically rigorous school, class rank at NCP was eliminated."

Actually, strictly speaking, the GPA scale doesn't necessarily factor into it; it's more related to the fact that the school is just filled with high achievers (or whatever you want to call them/us) to begin with. Even if we had a normal four-point scale on all our classes, but everyone's GPA ranged between 3 and 4 (for instance), then the person who had a 3.00000001 GPA might be at the bottom of the class.

--eve--

This is an improvement, but I still say the "Current Events" should be taken out or significantly changed, and perhaps the clubs list should be revised to only include currently active clubs, or make a note of well-known clubs that are now defunct. Such as KCOR. Also, whoever locked this is a major dildo. -SHK

I (besmircher of the name of Giles) find it funny that my actual edits were reversed in this little raid. Does it mean that I'm being punished for my transgressions by having my voice removed even in non-offensive contexts? Or that the moderator responsible for this action is simply rather distant from the actual goal of the encyclopedia? In either case, I think it’s a very poor reflection of your character, you aptly named prig. I hope you at least squeezed out a little pleasant something as you hit the lockdown button.

Editors on wikipedia, particularly those who aren't NS alum, might have trouble separating good-natured humor from vandalism; moreover, regardless of the fact that, at least from someone who attended NS and knows of Giles, those various nicknames were hilarious, the end result is the same. It might be funny and not malicious as other edits are, but it's still an article that's going to be read by some schmo[read: member of the fine upstanding public] and will think, "wow, they hired a teacher who has sex with young children," or "wow, look how worthless wikipedia can be." In either case, I can see why the uninvited company's allegiance is to policy over punchline in that context.

However.

Locking the page on articles in which the number of people 'knowledgeable' about it is relatively small is contraindicative with regards to the reasoning behind such an action. That's particularly true when one considers most of the people editing and remarking here on the talk page don't have accounts; "don't bite the newcomers" comes to mind as well, and the reason is that in other cases where pages are locked, it's the hope that vandals will eventually leave, or in the case of edit wars, heads will cool off in the duration of the protection. When the page's group of "experts" is so small, and really the group of people associated with the subject period, the vandals will likely be as numerous as the actual contributors. Since these people are for the most part not 'devoted wikipedians' or however committed the average wikipedian is, the lock will most likely frustrate those who actually know about it and send them away, leaving the article to rot. Granted, you could say that's their prerogative, but as an editor it seems it would be your charge to be responsible in taking action you know will sway action with regards to wikipedia in the first place; hence the creation of policies like not biting the newcomers. In this case, I think it's best to do what is done in most cases regarding constant vandalism, which is hope people will watch the article and address it as it arises. That said, if you could at least state the reasons for those who haven't seen the offending edits and the duration of such a block, it'd be nice--or at least remark to state that it won't be blocked indefinitely[as there are obvious reasons not to state how long something will be protected] 68.20.22.206 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)russ[reply]

There has been ongoing vandalism which has not been reverted on a timely basis, the school administration has complained, and there don't appear to be any responsible editors who know enough about the school to watch the article with any effectiveness. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I promise not to mess with the page anymore if it’s unlocked. I’m aware, naturally, that my word can’t be worth very much in a forum of this sort, but it couldn’t hurt to try me, right? If I change the page again, you can revert and lock it immediately, or if you’re worried about me still, then you can always block me from editing. I know there are loopholes there, but I don’t want to mess this up for everyone. I’ve had my fun.

I'm not going to argue about whether or not Giles was "bland." I enjoyed him as a teacher, but he was also the first teacher in my academic history in whose class I fell asleep. In any case, I don't think it's relevant or quantifiable. However, I felt that labeling him innovative (that was me) was actually pretty objective, in that he came up with and proliferated novel teaching methods. He tried things that other people had not tried before, both at Northside, and in Tashkent and Japan. I feel like that much is clear.

With regard to why he is listed as having left when other teachers are not: he was at Northside longer than any of the teachers listed above, and he spent a lot of time in considering and crafting the core values of the school, including the mission statement and curricula design.

Finally, if anyone cares to make a factual update, he is now in Thailand.

--eve--

admissions criteria

Anyone know from precisely where that admissions score is culled? I've heard similar things about certain factors being weighed and the whole sum being tallied out of a thousand point scale, but I'd like to be certain about these things. 68.20.22.206 russ.