Talk:St. Augustine High School (San Diego)

Blank slate

All right, I'm starting this discussion page as a blank slate because the older comments were outdated and not necessary. The762x51 06:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well- I think Pol Pot worked that way in Cambodia didn't he? I am entirely unimpressed with the removal of Augustinian history in the USA froim this page. It took a great deal of time to assemble that paragraph correctly, and I don't think it is irrelevant because it appears (at least in substance) on the Augustinian page. The reason it is there is to show there is more to the school and its tradition than its very local (parochial) history. Please leave it. If you were going to remove anything, how about that school song before the history of the international order and its broader role in the part of the world called the USA?

Cor Unum 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the Augustinians in the USA should have their own wikipedia article; they contributed so much that they really do deserve more than just a small blurb on an Augustinian school's wikipedia article. Even so, I made sure that the mention of the Augustinian arrival in San Diego was mentioned in the history portion of the article. The very fact that it is "St. Augustine" High School alludes to the rich Augustinian tradition; if you want, we can construct links to the other Augustinian colleges and institutions around the world. This is St. Augustine High School, San Diego's wikipedia, not an all-encompassing wikipedia article documenting the hundreds of years of Augustinian contributions to society. Saints has its own history, set apart from the other institutions, and so do the other institutions.

The762x51 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph on Augustinians can be found duplicated here, Augustinians#History in the New World: North America. It does not belong in this article, which is only about one high school. -Will Beback 22:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I know where the paragraph is. I wrote it. Will BebackI see you are an Administrator, but nevertheless you have, in my view, made the article literally more parochial by deleting the broader picture (which is, after all, one paragraph). I still don't see (and you have not given) a good reason for the deletion except "it doesn't belong". Many people simply look up one article only (like a school) and in my view it should be more comprehensive rather than less. I agree with The762x51 on the Augustinians in America- but I leave that to another interested party to research. I have done the Australian and other international connecting. I have already linked the worlwide international Augustinian institutions I have so far identified by category (at the bottom of the article). Cor Unum 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The history of the Augustinian order is relevant to all institutions Augustinian, but it shouldn't be duplicated in every article. Instead we provide links to related topics. The history of parochial high schools is also relevant as is the history of the surrounding area. We provide links to other articles which touch on those topics. If this were a stand-alone brochure on the school then including informaiton on all of those topics would make sense, but if we included every overlapping topic in every article this encyclopedia would be ten times larger, and 100 times harder to update. -Will Beback 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point - but let me be somewhat injudicious in my international observations. There is a view among non-Americans that it would be a good thing for American institutions to be more inclusive in their self-understanding of the institutions and historical moevements that connect them and genuinely make them part of the larger world. I might (unfairly) be accused of prejudice on this - but I have been keen with the Australian Augustinian institutions that they don't just feel satisfied with being "Australian" - but they look further and see themselves as part of a unifying world-movement (we are very linked historically (lik America) to the Irish- and now in the 21st century through missions to the Philippines and Koreans). Is a paragraph (one paragraph) really worth chucking out when (in my view) the result of chucking it might be viewed as a sort of insularity? I am not arguing for every connected issue to be fleshed out in every article - just I think it is important in articles connected to American institutions (in the curent world climate) that Americans are part of "us" and "we" are part of "them" - in a world culture of shared and crucial histories and values. Am really I being to political here? I don't think so. These are historic facts that unite us - and I think they should be included if they mean only a short paragraph.

Cor Unum 13:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to right the world's wrongs. The purpose of this article is provide a comprehensive summary of information about one specific school. It is the purpose of a different article to provide a history of a religious order. Another article covers the city of San Diego. Now we could include all the information in all the articles, but that'd be unwieldy. Instead we link to those other articles. It isn't a political issue, it's a practical matter of how to arrange a reference work. -Will Beback 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My argument was not a moral one about righting wrongs (but thanks for the superman suit being offered), but a factual one about the context of a school. I say again, (as you say) a "a comprehensive summary of information about one specific school" - which is Augustinian - should link it to it own (Irish-American) founders (which you don't say) . How about some names and dates to contextualise beyond it own founding date?. I still do not see any good reason why the paragraph was removed. Hyperlink added now. Cor Unum 11:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Block Scheduling

Really? I didn't hear anything about this. The762x51 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, in 2005 it was announced, because the school would be adding an "intersession month", having finals in early January, two weeks of the classes which for freshmen would be Driver's Ed, sophmores would have speech, and juniors and seniors have a choice of classes--Randomgbear 16:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Just because there will be an intersession month does not mean that there will be block scheduling. These two are different things. They can easily retain scheduling as it, and still have an intersession month.

It is possible that the intersession month will have block scheduling, but that doesn't mean it will happen during the normal school year.

The article states that the block scheduling is going to change during the 2006-07 school year. I go to Saints and it has not changed yet. More information is needed. Tom 20:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we delete it. This info is only of interest to curent or future students. It isn't of general interest, is likely to change, and is difficult to verify. -Will Beback 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definately not happening this year. I deleted it.--Godismy420 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Block Scheduling began the 2010-2011 school year, the "Schedule" section has been changed to reflect this. --75.8.123.131 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding school clubs

St. Augustine High School has never formally had a pro-choice club. The "Pro-life" club has been properly renamed as the "Students for Life" Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.250.36 (talk • contribs)

• During the 2006-2007 school year, a group of students attempted to start one, and were denied, but unofficially banded together. The same group also attemtped to make a heterosexual/homosexual alliance and were also denied. The group however was allowed to form a "DPR construction support group".

Etc.

First of all, I looked up "flexible modular scheduling," and it doesn't look anything like what we do. Does anybody have a justification for that statement? Second of all, I really don't think that the "recent departures" section is necessary. It has no encyclopedic interest (and I would argue that it even has little interest to students). Any opinions? If not, I'm just going to go ahead and delete both of these things.

I fully agree with only the first statement. While recent departures would not be of much interest to current students, it would to alumni who stumble on the page. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have that much encyclopedic interest...I could go either way on this one.

The recent teacher departures show any readers a rift in the current administration, with older teachers leaving, hiring some unqualified teachers (not mentioned in article, but knowledge within the community), so it has value, and is considered ongoing event or basis for another addition in school history section, as more teachers in 5 year period have left than any other period of the school's history. So it should be kept. And as to flexible modular scheduling, while the article claims 10-20 minute periods as the definition and says it is the method of college, it should be changed. St. A follows the basic method as the 10-20 example, although it 6-50 (6 blocks, 50 minute classes (mods)), the first two classes remain in order and last four are flexible and change order. The comment about St. A being one of the last schools in SD to use this method was also true and removed. This information should be aded back into the paragraph.

A "rift in the...administration" is the stuff of gossip, and it doesn't belong in the article. You justify the need for recent departures because you claim it shows readers a rift. Actually, it doesn't show anything. The rift and the hiring of "unqualified" teachers are not overtly mentioned. Just because teachers leave doesn't necessarily lead one to conclude that there is a rift. If it spoke of firings, then you'd have something there. But again, such info is not needed here. Besides, you state that such things are already the stuff of "knowledge within the community."

Rivalries -- Brokeback and Scott Peterson

I see no reason why we need to have something here about the Dons' fans chanting "Brokeback" and Saintsmen chanting "Scott Peterson". It's a worthless reference to a tasteless practice. It adds nothing to the article. It would be more useful to write about the huge crowds their games draw.

I agree. Also, all information should be verifiable by other editors. -Will Beback 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Publications

Welcome to the era of free speech my friends, The Augustinian finally has some competition and you want to delete any mention of it? How sad. If one can be mentioned, the other should follow. The762x51 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the addition of the "Maverick" to the publications lineup is new. There was "the repsonse", which one person said was a conservative response to one liberal article (which was actually a rough draft and not completed but printed anyway ).

The maverick is the response.. reverting - Jonathan Tayag, editor of The Maverick The762x51 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

and sign your comments The762x51 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

blatant vandalism - reverting. The762x51 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When was the Maverick started? From your comment above it appears recent. -Will Beback · † · 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I go to SAINTS; where can I get a copy of the Maverick. I've never seen or even heard about it. If it is a school publication then probably I would have heard about it, but I don't know. Thanks Tcpekin 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

its distributed in the library mostly, you can also get copies from seniors and a few juniors || started last monday The762x51 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tight, I'll check it out.Tcpekin 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I at first removed the refrence to The Maverick on Sunday (however did not add vandalism), at the time I did not know that on the next Monday (it (the paper) would appear), but since it is now a valid part of the Saints publication scene, it belongs on the article. However, to clarify, I only removed the refrence once, but didn't add any of the late comments. I believe there is a webpage for the Maverick (it said on the paper), a link should be added for people interested. (And about signing comments, I forget sometimes...)--Randomgbear 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever added the reference to Santos, you have my gratitude and my apologies for forgetting to add that other publication im involved with. The762x51 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Index1 r3 c2.gif

Image:Index1 r3 c2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NutmegRe.jpg

Image:NutmegRe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

The page Saint Augustine High School redirects to some school in England whose page is not as well maintained as this one. Also, there are many schools bearing this name. They are listed at St. Augustine High School I think that the redirect should point there instead. --75.8.123.131 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St. Augustine High School (San Diego). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129040453/http://www.profootballarchives.com/jone08730.html to http://www.profootballarchives.com/jone08730.html

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) 19:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)