Talk:Chaska High School

Clean-up

I have taken out much of the non-encyclopedic text from the article. It is really not necessary for Wikipedia to document the location of the restrooms and all the classrooms in the school, and every musical that has ever been performed by the drama club. I've left what I felt was useful information for an encylopedia. ... discospinster _talk 01:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to protest to DarkOliveGreen's clean-up. It is all true and informing. Say someone is moving into the district, this page would provide detailed information about the school. Over 25% of the page was "cleaned-up" but it was rather more...deleted.tHe GoOgLeR 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide to schools. Just because something might be "useful", it doesn't necessarily need to be included. See especially the policies "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". ... discospinster _talk 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Googler it looks as if you have a history with vandalism and shotty contributions, maybe you should read up on the wikipedia guidelines? Thanks for the help dark, I like to see my alma-mater page in half decent shape even if I'm too incompetent to do so myself.

Kerbs13 _talk

So I had some "vandalism". Technically it wasn't vandalism since it was credible; but whatever the case, these admins flip a tit whenever something new comes on. This site has helped many, and should stay up. I just don't see how it hurts anybody to have some information, because no matter the amount of information, it can never be enough. Why don't you leave it up to me and my peers to decide what should and shouldn't be put on the Chaska High School website, seeing how we go there.tHe GoOgLeR 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to document every little thing that's ever happened at your school, you can create your own webpage at Geocities or My Space. Or start a blog. Then you and your peers can create a resource that will be helpful to anyone interested in Chaska High School. ... discospinster _talk 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why the original clean up was necessary. The information displayed had revealed characteristics of the CHS community that perhaps were deleted to hastily and without legitimate reason. I digress to believe that the deleted information was indeed disadvantageous for the rest of the Wikipedia community to apprehend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameisjonas640 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Did you look at the article before the ongoing cleanup, it was terrible. At least now it's using the same template as other schools. If you would elaborate on what was legitimate and removed during the cleanup, I for one would appreciate it. If you are referring to the removal of the links to the parody Chanhassen high school website and the content expressing the general disapproval of the administration by the student body, you must understand that both are only fads that come and go with time. They are by no means encyclopedic and therefore do not belong in Wikipedia. I fully stand with discospinster on this one. - Mtekk 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you send me the link of the Chanhassen High School parody website? Thanks. Chilledsunshine 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just remove the spaces in said name and append .com to it. - Mtekk 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

aka http://chanhassenhighschool.com/ Chardrc 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article could be great - it needs citations though guys. --Dan Leveille^TALK 10:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Its too bad. Chaska has messed up its whole school, and now messed up the wikipedia page? unbelievable. i just wanna know where the bathrooms are! I have to hold it all day, and with 6 minute passing time instead of 8. Teachers give us 3 bathroom passes a quarter during class so i can't go then. I have to run to get from green to purple between classes, theres no time to stop since is so freakin crowded. This school cares nothing about it's students. And CHS wonders why we rebel and hate the school and graduate early... (Gea5454 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Assessment request: (Start/low)

Needs more citations and need to updated to include all sections as needed by a good schools article. — Calebrw (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

needs some updates.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardrc (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mission statement

Do we want to keep the long mission section? RJFJR (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Equity/Racial Issues

With the incidents that occurred in 2018 and 2019, there has been a lot of editing and traffic on this page, but nothing on the talk page. I figured I would bring that up here and see if we can avoid edit warring. Specifically, there has been a debate over what to name the section of the article devoted to those incidents, with the current name being "racial issues" and other possibilities including "equity concerns" or "equity issues." Personally, I believe the best word to use here is "equity," because it seems the most neutral and because that's what the school district refers to it as ("equity initiatives," etc.).

In addition, the equity section has been tagged as an example of recency bias, and some of it may not necessarily meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, especially in the future. 162.210.216.170 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that the use of equity is the most neutral term, as it carries inherent bias with the district in their terminology. Although it may reflect poorly on the school, racism seems to be the most accurately reflective term when referring to the recent string of campus incidents. If it for some reason was a concern, perhaps we could use "Race-related controversies," as it doesn't carry the same connotation or bluntness as "Racial issues." AdventureRick (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I do feel that the word "racism" is too blunt when used in this situation. "Race-related controversies" is perfectly fine. 162.210.216.170 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this section may violate the WP:NOTNEWS policy. What do the more experienced editors out there think? 73.88.58.38 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe 73.88.58.38 is right. Reports of racial equity problems are not "routine news," for the school.

However, special emphasis cannot be placed on it only because it was breaking news - which I believe was the case here. When we look at the article for Lowndes High School, noteworthy moments of controversy are recorded as defining moments/subsections in school "History," and not entire sections of their own, like on this article. I agree with the former method, although someone would need to beef up the History section on this page before introducing and reorganizing information like that. AdventureRick (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Citations

I put up most of the 'citation needed' notices as well as the 'additional citations needed' banner several months ago. Since essentially nothing has changed since then, I'll bring it up here. I know that most of the information in this article is indeed accurate through personal experience, but just because it's true does not mean that it can go unverified. Please take a look here to see why I put these in, and here to learn more about Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If this information cannot be backed up through some means other than anecdote, they need to be removed. Given that removing all of the unverified information would remove something like 80% of this page, I really don't want to do that.

Things like the school's opening, expansion, student body, sport's championships, etc. shouldn't be too terrible to support. Other things like the brand of computers available in the libraries and media centers might be considered irrelevant. Swanare (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I took care of the athletics section (and removed two that failed verification) Meters (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until now - I didn't think to check the talk page. I've put in some of the unsourced information (specifically in the extracurriculars section), and yes, you are right in that I know it to be true, but have no way of proving it. The problem here is that there are very few (pretty much none) sources for this info that pass Wikipedia's reliability tests, as most of the sources I can find are other Wikis (either Wikipedia or the QuizbowlWiki). I will keep looking for other sources. 73.88.58.38 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I found a recent source to verify the rest of the Academic Teams info, so that section should be polished off citation-wise. 73.88.58.38 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)