Talk:Piedmont High School (California)

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Schools B‑class Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Logo needed

This page needs a Piedmont High logo, although I can't seem to find a good quality one anywhere.--SanjayPatel 23:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/buttons/phs.jpg

http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/buttons/scot_man.jpg

http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/phsdev/images/new_scot_man.jpg

http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/phsdev/images/scot_rotate.jpg

One of these images might be good for use in the article, or provide a nice base. ;) Thunk 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

liberal/partisan/criticism edit war

Over this repeated statement: The school is run by an extremely liberal and openly partisan administration, receiving much criticism from the community. At the most basic we need to see verifiable references from reliable sources that substantiate the elements:

'extremely liberal ... (school) administration'
'openly partisan (school) administration'
'much criticism from the community'

The usual places to look are online newspaper archives and the archives at news.google.com. Several examples of a google news archive search: [1], [2], [3], [4] Keep in mind that personal experiences of this bias/criticism are original research which is insufficient for encyclopedic inclusion. Zedla (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I am assessing this article as B / Mid class for been well structured and having a good collection of references and pictures. I am assessing it as Mid importance for well known academics, alumni, and nationally recognised contest. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the SFBA and Cal assessments to C, while it has a decent number of sections set up structure wise, several of the sections are very brief and need expansion, History is very short, while Academics has small sections that could be merged and lists that can be converted to prose (list of AP courses). -Optigan13 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new "liberal/partisan" edit war

The statement of the school's "extremely liberal and openly partisan administration" ([5]) is blatant POV pushing. The source given does not mention this; it is a map of voting trends in Alameda County. If an RS can be found to justify this statement, I would not necessarily be opposed to it, as long as it were worded along the lines of "Piedmont has come under criticism for its extremely liberal and openly partisan administration..." and explains the significance of this claim, e.g., biases in curriculum, corruption, etc. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by Kuyabribri above, the current link provided as a citation for the extremely liberal line doesn't back up the assertion that's been repeatedly inserted diff. The map showing voting records shows that the area voted heavily for Barack Obama in the last election. Saying that an area voted heavily in favor of a political candidate doesn't automatically place that area in the extremes of the political spectrum. More importantly, those voting records do not tie directly to the voting records of the staff, or any students eligible to vote. Asserting that a voting map shows anything related to the political affiliation of the faculty of staff is improper synthesis, and I believe an attempt to back up original research. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Additionally, even if this statement were true, it doesn't belong in the lead. I'm going to be moving it down shortly if it's still there when I get to it. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should worry about the location after we reach a consensus on wording. Is the new wording fine with everyone. It's okay with Kuyabribri. I think the location is good because, truthfully, most people think of liberalism as they hear Piedmont High School, kind of like San Francisco and Berkeley. That's what it's kmnown for! Thanks.

No the statement is not fine, it still uses a voting record map for the whole area to ~~now back~~ make claims related to a school administration, which is a very specific small group of people. Do you have any local paper, tv news report, or any other reliable source which would back up your assertion? -Optigan13 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:OR and will come out over and over again until someone can provide an actual source. Grsz¹¹ 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Don't say I said something that I didn't.

If an RS can be found to justify this statement, I would not necessarily be opposed to it, as long as it were worded along the lines of "Piedmont has come under criticism for its extremely liberal and openly partisan administration..." and explains the significance of this claim, e.g., biases in curriculum, corruption, etc.
— repost of my comment above, with additional emphasis

The claim still isn't backed up with reliable sources that actually back up the claim, and it still doesn't say why this claim is significant in the context of the school. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emphasize what Optigan and Grsz11 have said. One of Wikipedia's core, non-negotiable policies is one of verification: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (Emphasis my own). Tan | 39 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I would like to (sarcastically) applaud the civility of the last IP user that edited this article before it was semi-protected, for vandalizing my talk page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the IP is [[User:]](logged in as well as from various IPs) who has been doing this ( could you please just log in), both here and at Piedmont Unified School District and Talk:Piedmont, California#A Liberal City?. It's probably best if we continue any further discussion at the city's main article to avoid repeating ourselves. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Piedmont High School (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]