Talk:Corona del Mar High School/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Links to articles of potential use in improving the article

Doing a search for "Corona del Mar High School" with no additional terms, these are the news articles as they came up in the first three pages of the general search:
These articles are reliable sources. Of the first three pages of a specific news search, the articles that did not come up in the general search were:
Most of the Corona del Mar today and Daily Pilot articles usually do not reflect national attention.
Nationally, the school is known for the hacking incident, enough so that it would be due weight to include in the lede. To not include it would violate WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GEVAL. The prom lottery may or may not be due weight to include in the lede, but that and other incidents are enough due weight for their own section with a line in the lede mentioning that there have been controversies.
This is not to denigrate the school, this is only to summarize what reliable sources have to say about the school. I have no interest in the school or in going against it, my only concern is summarizing the sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Good one! See section below for proper classification of these articles70.197.75.112 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
See WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE for why you don't belong here at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV why you're mistaken.70.197.75.112 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Undue? Due weight is determined by the sources. The majority of the national sources discuss the hacking controversy! You have admitted previously that you're here to keep us from including information you don't like. That's an agenda to censor the article, plain and simple. Claiming that the above citations do not demonstrate due weight proves that you are not here in good faith, that we should not listen to you, and that you are of no use to the site in any way. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The articles you selected and weight you've given them speak for themselves - multiple disparaging articles on a few isolated events.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Red top journalism at its finest.174.240.37.112 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Multiple journalistic sources, which establishes due weight for notable incidents. The hacking scandal could actually get its own article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That may be so - if you're trying to build a tabloid, rather than an encyclopedia.174.240.37.112 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not unencyclopedic. In fact, your obvious bias would prevent you from properly gauging what is encyclopedic with regards to the school. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If you were here to build an encyclopedia, you would not have cited 10 articles on the same single incident of cheating - instigated by a private tutor who had no affiliation with the school. An objective editor would call that WP:UNDUE. You may wish to examine your own objectivity. 174.253.240.87 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What part of "I searched for info only on 'Corona del Mar High School'" did you not get? Undue would be taking 1 out of 10 articles and claiming that 1 takes precedence over the other 10. Undue would be ignoring nearly a dozen news articles (each from different journalistic organizations). Due weight would be taking all available sources and summarizing them in proportion to the sources available and according to how broad the coverage is. If the first three pages of a general Google search for "Corona del Mar high school" (without any mention of hacking or any other scandal, just the name and nothing else) pull up 11 news articles, and 10 of them are about the hacking incident, that's due weight. When the first three pages of a specific news search includes the above and pulls up six additional articles (two from local papers focused on only matters concerning people living near Corona del Mar high school), that only makes it even more due weight.
So, to recap, focusing the majority of the article on "CdMHS Sells Out Battle of Bay Football Tickets," would be undue. Including nothing about the hacking scandal would be undue. Including a line in the intro and section about the hacking scandal would be due. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the IP you told, "go hang yourself, whatever, just screw off. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)" then blocked for three days. No problem, I don't hold a grudge. You're never going to convince us this is a story about a crooked Korean tutor, or a pot-smoking teacher, or some unruly boys after school. This is a reference article about a high school, that's all. Go pick on someone else.72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
And you were the POV-pushing censor who hounded me after I left the article (and I'm sure it's only coincidence that the other IP editors pushing the same POV showed up right after you were blocked). I don't have to convince you or any of the other biased POV-pushers with an agenda. All I have to do is bring in reliable sources, because Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. If you don't like that, you should complain to the newspapers instead of crusading to censor things you just don't like.
This is a reference article about the school, yes, which is why it would include things the school is known for nationally. If we cannot include the hacker story, we certainly cannot include their ranking in U.S. News and World Report. Or would you prefer a whole article on just Corona del Mar High School controversies? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that is called a "bootstrap argument." (I will ignore the ad hominem attack.) Mentioning criminal events in an encyclopedia article about school implies the school had something to do with it, and wasn't just a venue. The school is not "known for" fugitive Koreans and pot-smokers. The school - as well as Newport Beach, Orange County and California - had nothing to do it. It is bad encyclopedia writing to imply otherwise. In contrast, the school did have something to do with earning a Gold Medal from U.S. News & World Report. That reference needs to stay. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
USER:IP 72.194.125.162: Whether said tutor is part of a particular racialized group is irrelevant. By mentioning it in the way you have (twice even), you seem to be attempting to assert some kind of cause and effect relationship: this is called "racism." The racial identity of the tutor has nothing to do with any illegal or immoral acts. Please refrain from racism. --Dalton D. Hird 05:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Do not insult me. This was a reference to nationality, not race.72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Then its an attempt to establish cause and effect in reference to a particular national identity; that's still racism.--Dalton D. Hird 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
No, but you've been trying to establish cause and effect by referencing any negative article you can find about Corona del Mar High School. Please do us all a favor and go away. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting how far these detractors will go ... Playing the race card? Pathetic.~~-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B10C:F9E4:29FA:949A:B62E:96CB (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Links to articles of potential use in disparagement

Editors Interested in using this article to disparage Corona del Mar High School should add links to useful articles here. 70.197.75.112 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This section title is highly POV and assumes bad faith from those who aren't trying to turn the article into an advertisement or censor reliably sourced reporting on controversies, which only makes it seem more likely you're really 174.240.6.83 evading his block. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Believe it or not many people want to make sure you, Toddy and DaltonHird don't turn this article into a hit piece on CdM. That's not what WP:WPSCH articles are about.70.197.75.112 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Assume good faith or leave. I'm not from California, or even west of the Appalachians, so I have absolutely no involvement for or against the school. Heck, most of my family and friends are involved in the education system, and I've been working towards getting a career in teaching as well, so I hate moral panics that target education. My only concern is summarizing reliable sources. If are here to crusade for an agenda, you should leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you have a bit of a history that would raise some eyebrows - having told the IP "go hang yourself, whatever, just screw off. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)". You would be more persuasive if you modeled the behavior you require of others.2600:1012:B01C:4C3A:60B6:FB10:7031:7D28 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Gee, a user you agree with hounds me when after I had left the article alone, I tell him to (in context) "drop your grade school personal vendetta and get on with the article. Or go hang yourself, whatever, just screw off" (i.e. demonstrate that he was here to build the encyclopedia instead of pick fights), he made legal threats elsewhere (and yet blames me for getting blocked), and suddenly some new IPs show up purely by 'coincidence'. All of you are tendentious editors who don't belong here. It's that simple. I honestly have no regard for you and see you as nothing but a blightful lot of censors whining about the school being involved in a few troubles like you think it's persecution or something. Well guess what? I'm a liberal from and living in a former Confederate state -- your high school getting in the news for a few screw ups doesn't compare to my home state being in the history books for the bloodiest war on American soil for the express purpose of keeping slavery, and if I can get over something that shameful, I don't understand why y'all can't get over a Wikipedia article on a single high school in the area. Seriously, grow up and get over it, the lot of you. Find something better to do than POV push, because you're wasting your time and mine. The only reason I'm here is to keep y'all from censoring the article just because you don't like stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
With all the time you have on your hands you might want to look for negative news coverage mentioning the names of other schools - then we if it is included in their Wikipedial article. You will fnd that as a whole it is given appropriate weight if covered at all. WP:WPSCH articles follow appropriate encyclopedic standards of relevance and emphasis. This article reads like a tabloid.2600:1012:B10C:F9E4:7462:C458:2188:F6D2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, its the school's history that reads like a tabloid. The article merely reflects this per Wikipedia policy. --Dalton D. Hird 15:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Cute, but the applicable policy is WP:UNDUE.70.209.206.248 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You keep saying that and yet I don't think you know what that means.
Say you have four sources that say "A," two sources that say "B," and one source that says "C."
Due weight would be an article that goes AAAABBC, WP:GEVAL would be ABC, undue weight would be ABCCCC, and censorship would be BC.
There are a dozen sources that cover the hacking incident. That's due weight.
You guys, who are clearly involved with CdMHS and therefore biased in the matter, are calling for toning down or removal of the controversies, which is undue weight or WP:GEVAL at best and censorship at worst. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Making this article less like an advert for the school

Most of this article reads like an advertisement for the school. Except for a few sentences in the lead, anything that adds balance has been put in a section marked "Controversies". I propose the following:

  • Add two templates to the top of the article {{advert}}{{COI}}. These will bring to readers' attention that most of the article is an advert and that some editors appear to have a conflict of interest (which is why they try to bury all bad news about the school).
  • Move material on the cheating to the section marked "Academics", which should be renamed "Academic performance". ("Acedemic" [plural "Academics"] is a noun that in English means one of the teaching staff at a university.) If you read the articles in European newspapers about the cheating they are interesting. In one of the incidents, the child's parents dealt with it by getting the child a lawyer, which killed the investigation. In another incident, the children who hacked computers did so at the behest of their private tutor. Judging from the articles, there is nothing abnormal for children at the school to have private tuition outside the school (i.e. the good grades are not necessarily anything to do with the work of the school). See BBC, Pupils 'hack teachers' computers and change grades, 4 February 2014, and Daily Telegraph, Pupils expelled for hacking teachers' computers to change grades, by Rhiannon Williams, 4 February 2014.

In the longer term we should also be able to add balance to the section on sports (wrongly marked "Athletics"). See for example, CNN transcipts, Some Parents Suing Over School Coaching, aired 19:36 ET 15 May 2003.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed edits would make a bad article worse. You might as well title it, "Corona del Mar High School: All the negative news we can find." Your comment above demonstrates the illogic of including isolated incidents of cheating in an encyclopedic article about an academic institution. On one hand you maintain the school cannot take credit for the academic performance of students because they may use a tutor to get good grades. On the other hand you suggest the school is blameworthy because the tutor helped the students cheat. The fact is the academic institution had nothing to do with the tutor or the students insofar as their cheating was concerned. The incident has nothing to do with the academic institution itself, only the students and tutor involved. I suggest we let the experts like U.S. News and World report rank the performance of the school overall ... and keep isolated events such as these out of the article - unless you want to open the door to reporting on every occurrence of cheating at every academic institution, starting with the U.S. Naval Academy. Putting them in the article wrongly implies the school itself caused the cheating and gives these isolated instances undue weight. 72.194.125.162 (talk)
With respect of cheating, a fair-minded article would explain the hacking case reported on in various publications on 4 February 2014 properly. It was not in any way the fault of the school. The behaviour of the school-children in that particular case was induced by a private tutor that parents had hired. Similarly, with the other cheating case that was mentioned in those articles, a key point is that a parent hired a lawyer to make it difficult for the school to investigate. The school was the victim in both incidents.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Toddy you must be kidding - an advert?

Make this look less like an advert for the school? You must be kidding. (And I assume good faith...) With ads like this, who needs detractors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Until this article is fixed it should be called "Corona del Mar High School: All the negative news we can find.--72.194.125.162 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Toddy: This sounds like an excellent and much-needed comprehensive plan. Adding this balance to a re-named, "Sports" section and moving the information on academic dishonesty to the "Academic Performance" section is a much more accurate way of presenting this information. --Dalton D. Hird 16:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, Dalton Hird. The "plan" must comply with WikipediaProject Schools Article Guidelines. The article in its present form fails miserably and your proposed edits will take it even further out of compliance. For example, Wikipedia policy requires the lead to include the following:
"Introduction/lead – Give the full official name, common names, and former names of the school in bold text (e.g. Stuy), use italic text for names of the school in other languages besides English; and detail about its location (town/municipality, county/state/province, and country). Add a few facts about the school that make it unique. Provide the name of the founder and founding name, and affiliation with any larger school system or education organization, if applicable. Include brief statistics on the number of pupils (always state the date when the information is current and be cautious about having too many statistics that will need to be updated frequently). Summarize the main sections of the article – history, alumni, buildings, etc." Id.
Your edits to the lead fail to comply with this policy. Moreover, in case you were going to say the negative news coverage you've seized upon contains "facts about the school that make it unique," think again. Even Toddy recognizes the school itself was not involved. It's worth mentioning that your obsession with republishing negative news coverage involving students at the school runs afoul of another Wikipedia policy. The incidents you keep sticking in the article involve living persons. This encyclopedia should not republish or comment on any unproven allegations involving them - especially in an article that has a different purpose. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
As for the "advertising template" ... Well, it looks like certain editors want to use this article to advertise AGAINST Corona del Mar High School. Hardly encyclopedic; the article is now an absurdity.72.194.125.162 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The policy quoted above suggests that the introduction should summarise the main sections of the article. The sentence in the in the introduction that the IP editor has been complaining about is summarising one of the main sections of the article. So you would have thought that the IP editor would have realised that the introduction was compliant with the policy that he/she cited.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is a robust Controversies section and all that goes with it was not intended to be part of the WikiProject on schools. I doubt there is any high school that has been taken to the woodshed in a Wikipedia article like this one. Amazingly bad coverage - and too much of it devoted to events outside the classroom. 2600:1012:B10B:F8AB:C5F9:21EB:78D9:1BA4 (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, which includes journalistic sources. The school has had press coverage regarding a number of scandals. The absence of such information in articles on other schools is a result of those other schools not getting into the news, not because such info exists but is hidden. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The controversies section is completely WP:UNDUE. The purpose of an encyclopedia is neither to advertise nor to name and shame - it must have neutral balance, and anything that is akin to red-top reporting should be left out or at least pruned to barest essentials. The controversies section could easily be reduced to about 8 lines. The WP:WPSCH editors will happily take care of restructuring this article if necessary. Kudp ung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree - restructuring by WP:WPSCH editors is necessary.70.209.207.84 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Material currently in the "Controversies" section should not, however, be deleted, as it is very well-sourced; the page should be restructured. Information documenting the many years of consistent social problems related to sexism, homophobia, drug and alcohol abuse, academic dishonesty and misconduct in the area of athletics should certainly remain, as there is not a high school in the nation with such a notorious and persistent record. These incidents should be moved under their respective headings as suggested by USER:Toddy above. If the incident does not fit neatly under one of the headings, it should stay under "Controversies" - or maybe it should read, "Additional Controversies." It should also be noted that the article mentions only a subset of more recent incidents - since approx 2008. Were we to look back further we would find a great many additional incidents. Likewise, were we to take a comprehensive approach to citing all recent controversies and scandals we would have a much larger number of lines devoted to the social problems at the school (for one easy example currently not discussed see, "Corona del Mar High School math teacher arrested for giving marijuana" here [1] ). In the interest of neutrality and balance the focus should certainly stay on the recent past and on the most notable of these recent events. --Dalton D. Hird 23:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonHird (talk • contribs)

Drug use in high schools is common and unworthy of reference in Wikipedia articles about schools as institutions. Classic WP:UNDUE.174.240.6.83 (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that in this case its a teacher giving drugs to a student(s). --Dalton D. Hird 02:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonHird (talk • contribs)

Most schools are not really notable. But some are. Eton College (a public school in England) is notable for the extremely high standard of education there. Rugby is notable, partly because of Thomas Arnold and partly because of the novel Tom Brown's School Days. Corona del Mar High School is also a notable school; events there have been covered by CNN and the BBC and in newspapers as far away as England. Saying that the article should omit the only things that make the school notable makes no sense. What next, an article on Al Capone saying that he was for a time a successful Chicago businessman and a notable philanthropist, and mentions in one sentence that his business career declined after her was imprisoned by the government after a mix-up over his taxes (and let's not mention anything about murders, violence or criminality for all the reasons being recited here for omitting the notable stuff about the school).-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
With all respect you might want to take a break from editing this one - comparing one of the top high schools in the nation (according to U.S. News and World Report) to Al Capone runs way afoul of WP:NPOV 70.209.199.169 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
With that sort of all or nothing false dichotomy, I can only assume you're 174.240.6.83 evading his block. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
My working assumption is that 174.240.6.83, 70.209.199.169, 70.197.70.151, 70.197.75.112 and 2600:1012:B01C:4C3A:60B6:FB10:7031:7D28 are all the same person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally the source the IP says shows the school is one of the top in the US, shows that it is 222nd in the USA and 37th in California. Quite a long way from top.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read the report. Corona del Mar High School is a U.S. News & World Report Gold Medalist. It ranked 222 out of more than 31,000 high schools in the U.S., which means the school ranks in the top 1% of all high schools in the U.S. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion but it has already been recognized one of the top U.S.high schools by professionals in the field.2600:1012:B116:33EB:782F:E3BF:E3C8:510 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Added POV template for reasons discussed on this talk page.72.194.125.162 (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://articles.dailypilot.com/2010-01-15/local/dpt-smith011610_1_corona-del-smoking-marijuana-smoke-pot

Undue Weight in the Lead

The article is not impartial nor are reported events weighted appropriately. Clearly the article in its present state gives undue weight to isolated events, criticisms, and news reports that are vastly disproportionate to the overall outstanding reputation and history of this academic institution. By way of comparison, is the famous Naval Academy cheating scandal prominently featured in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about that illustrious institution? Absolutely not, nor should it be. Isolated events will occasionally occur but they are not the defining feature of an academic institution. It is worth mentioning that DaltonHird, the Wikipedia editor whose edit war resulted in protecting this page (and whose edits remain in the protected version)admittedly has a feminist POV, thus claims the school has "serious social problems resulting in several high-profile instances of sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence". These slurs do not belong in the article, especially where there already is a Controversies section repeating them.--72.194.125.162 (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2014

I agree, sanitizing the controversy section is wrong, but this kind of weight in the lead is disproportionate. SeaphotoTalk 04:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

After a truly remarkable succession of controversies spanning many years (at least 7), which effectively serve to both document and corroborate the hostile and dangerous climate at this school - particularly for young women and LGBT students - and, given that these instances have consistently been recognized as newsworthy by nationally-circulated newspapers, the dangerous social climate at this school has become its defining characteristic and belongs in the introductory paragraph. In point of fact, given the problems at this school anything less than this would be misleading and, quite frankly, irresponsible. --Dalton D. Hird 04:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonHird (talk • contribs)

There is a dearth of reporting on this "truly remarkable succession of controversies spanning many years" to which you refer - there were a few instances that were sensationally reported. If you were correct in your conclusion the ACLU case would not have collapsed ... and the school would be subject to a consent decree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources that document that other content has been more widely covered. Otherwise per WP:LEAD we include content into the lead based on what third parties have covered including major controversies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Google "Corona del Mar High School" and "athletics". You will get 2.8 million hits. Then Google "Corona del Mar High School" and "homophobia" - only 660k hits. Where is the reference to athletics in the lead? Moreover, characterizing the entire academic institution as guilty of "sexism" and "homophobia" violates WP:NPOV because these are opinions, not facts, and they apply to individuals, not institutions. (Read my comment above about the absence of a consent decree, proving there was no institutional wrongdoing.)--72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2014
Most sites picked up by google spectacularly fail WP:RS so the above demonstrates nothing about how the school is seen within reliably published coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The information included in the final sentence of the lead, which discusses the school's consistently and extraordinarily hostile and dangerous social climate, is very well sourced per Wikipedia guidelines.--Dalton D. Hird 05:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonHird (talk • contribs)

No, it is biased. There are far more articles on academic and athletic achievements. And - just to show the bias in the Controversies section - it omitted an Atlantic Monthly article deflating the feminist media hoopla on the Prom Draft. --72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2014
The stuff you want to delete has good citations to independent reliable sources. So it is going to stay.
If you have other independent reliable sources, that give a different view of either the incidents or the school, why not try to achieve the kind of balance you want by adding information to them.
Regarding what you say about "sexism" and "homophobia" applying to individuals not institutions - have you heard of the phrase "institutional racism"? Though the phrase was originally coined by activists, it is now used sane and normal people in government to describe the way some institutions behave - see an English government report dealing with a failure by the police in London. Maybe you would understand the issues better if you read the report and thought deeply about its implications.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I have read the UK report to which you refer. It proves the point that a finding of institutional homophobia or sexism cannot be made without a thorough official inquiry. Anything short of that, as here, is an allegation or opinion - not an encyclopedic fact. The lead should be changed to delete these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.70.151 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way the Devil's Advocate article from The Atlantic is a 'humourous' opinion piece [a.k.a. "think piece"]. Given its clearly humourous intention, it is not even reliable as a source for its author's opinion. You might just as well try to cite a joke from "One Foot in the Grave" as a source for Athens being the 10th worst place in the world.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Disagree - look up "Devil's Advocate" - this article accurately summarizes the opposing points of view. Publius was an alternative literary device with the same purpose.--70.197.70.151 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead should be reworded to "There have been several controversies involving sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence and academic dishonesty at the school." Remove the social problems language and that it is 'instances' for controversies as technically the school didn't admit wrongdoing in the litigation (others aren't really proven yet). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree they are controversies only. They belong in the Controversies section or a separate article - not the lead.--70.197.70.151 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If you read the cited articles you will agree they are not encyclopedic or applicable to the academic institution as opposed to its students. The LA Times article talks about the students reflecting Newport Beach culture, as to which the author obviously has an antagonistic POV, but does not attribute this to the school. The OC Weekly article is hardly a reliable source and is clearly an opinion piece. The OC Register article states cheating is a "normal occurrence". The same handful of isolated events are endlessly regurgitated in these and other articles - and in the Controversies section. This is a horribly biased article as it stands now - hijacked by detractors of Newport Beach. The high school itself is a highly decorated bystander in the blast zone.--72.194.125.162 (talk) of 03:26, 4 October 2014
See my reference above to a Google search producing 2.8 million hits on athletics. If you Google the school and academics you get 19 million hits. Why? This is one of the top high schools in the nation. Shame on those Wikipedia editors who for whatever biased reason are trying to tear it down. If you Google "Corona del Mar High School" and cheating, you get about 120,000 hits. Do the same for "Beverly Hills High School" and cheating, you get 150,000 hits. Or try Palos Verdes Peninsula High School. Yet the articles on these schools are silent on cheating. That is because these are isolated incidents not worthy of encyclopedic reference.--72.194.125.162 (talk) of 03:26, 4 October 2014

Content dispute

I'll repeat what I posted earlier:

The controversies section is completely WP:UNDUE. The purpose of an encyclopedia is neither to advertise nor to name and shame - it must have neutral balance, and anything that is akin to red-top reporting should be left out or at least pruned to barest essentials. The controversies section could easily be reduced to about 8 lines. The WP:WPSCH editors will happily take care of restructuring this article if necessary.

It's blatantly obvious that someone has the sole intention of using Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. to disparage this school as much as possible. If this article cannot be restructured according to policy and guidelines, and if its talk page cannot be contributed to sensibly and civilly, the article risks being pruned down to basic information and locked down so that only admins can edit it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

All the information is extremely well-sourced including nationally-circulating news sources per Wikipedia guidelines. The school just has a long and troubling history. From WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The article is neutral as it reports, "the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." When well-resourced info is removed, this is censorship. Please see years of talk on this at bottom of Talk page. --Dalton D. Hird 01:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that our IP-hopping IP editor solicited comment from Kudpung - see [1][2]. Note that the second IP was used to change the signature of the first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, User:Toddy1. Does this behavior qualify to get this editor blocked for a while? --Dalton D. Hird 15:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Not really. I would ask Kudpung to note the dozen sources on the hacking incident alone, gathered from a general search and broad news search on only "Corona del Mar high school" (no additional terms to focus on any particular story). Other incidents may or may not be undue, but the hacking incident must be mentioned per WP:DUE and should not be removed or downplayed under WP:NOTCENSORED.
If the article is whitewashed to appease IPs with COIs so obvious that Helen Keller could see them from the international space station while facing in the other direction, I will create a separate article on the incident and link it in the lede of this article. And I'd really rather work on other stuff, so please just go with due weight in this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Ian.thompson: Thanks for adding this article and for the levity. You are saying that enough consensus has been reached to begin restructuring the controversies section by parsing incidents under their appropriate headings (ie. reliable reports of academic dishonesty under "Academics," for example), correct? --Dalton D. Hird 16:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think so - but some of them need to be expanded so they do justice to the school, as discussed in the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Toddy, DaltonHird (long-term POV editor) and Ian.Thompson are once again disparaging and trying to silence other editors. The majority of editors on this page do not agree with them that this is an article about a "Prom Draft", or a hacking incident, or their favorite social issues. Those matters may be interesting but they have nothing to do with the school itself. Kudpung knows what a Wikipedia school project article should look like and it's not this. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Bollocks, you're just here to censor the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Not to those who understand the difference between disparagement and censorship.72.194.125.162 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dalton D. Hird: "Enough consensus" has NOT been reached to expand the Controversies section throughout the article to achieve greater disparagement. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal vendettas.72.194.125.162 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A message to CdM IP censors

It'd obvious to anyone who bothers looking for more than a second that you and the other IPs are involved with the school. That means you have a WP:COI. Yes, Dalton may or may not be be a single purpose account, but you definitely are, and Toddy1 and I both have experience with, interest in, and involvement with a variety of matters on this site. Our presence here is merely procedural rather than any actual judgement of the school. Your presence is to push an agenda to remove sourced material that you don't like.
There's over a dozen news articles (that meet our definition of reliability) on the hacking incident alone (gathered from just a general search on only "Corona del Mar High School" so accusations of cherry-picking cannot be made without lying). Per WP:DUE, there's reason to cover it and per WP:NOTCENSORED is no reason to remove it. I could, right now, create an article "Corona del Mar High School hacking incident" and it would pass our notability guidelines. If (if) there was a deletion discussion, the result would either be "keep" (perhaps locked so you couldn't edit it) or "merge" (with all the content becoming a permanent part of this article). In either case, the information would not be removed from the site. Would you like that?
You have yet to adequately counter these points, instead either ignoring them or repeating already dismissed arguments. Your presence will not contribute to any sort of consensus because you do not belong here, plain and simple. All your tendentious arguing will not help your cause, it will only hurt it. If you and your meatpuppets left right now, editors who actually know what they're doing and aren't blinded by their bias toward the school would be able to remove incidents that do not merit the weight they receive. I actually would remove incidents that didn't receive national coverage and any stories that only received coverage in a single national news source. The only reason I've yet to do so is that I do not trust you to not take that as a signal to begin whitewashing anything you don't like.
In other words: If you actually care about the article, leave it alone. Go away, and tell your friends to not come here. You're welcome to help elsewhere, but you're simply not capable of having a neutral point of view regarding this article, because you are too emotionally invested in it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The issues are relevance and balance. A good encyclopedia must have both of these qualities to be useful. Your edits don't meet this standard because they mistakenly equate numerosity with significance and correlation with causation. A reader would think the only things of importance occurred off-campus and after hours, such as how a tutor instigated an episode of cheating or how some students arranged their prom date requests. Your "encyclopedia" would read like a soap opera and misrepresent the school by the selective emphasis of a couple of isolated events.2600:1012:B125:EC23:CCD9:2C40:B45A:DD72 (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As has been explained repeatedly, Wikipedia does not give equal validity to opposing views, only due weight. WP:Due weight is determined by how many sources discuss a subject. Again, if there's 4 sources that say A, 2 that say B, and 1 that says C, due weight would be AAAABBC; while undue weight and censorship would be something like ACC or BBC. There are a dozen sources on the hacking incident alone. That qualifies it for it's own article if you truly believe the incident it's not relevant to this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding dates may help clarify about these high profile events. If these just occurred during the last five years (since Rent), then perhaps it would be helpful to note in the lead section that these events have occurred during that timeframe, not the entire 52 years of the school's existence. Bahooka (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I support adding the dates for context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Academic performance" inappropriately puts "academic dishonesty" in the first sentence, and falsely implies both that there were more instances of "academic dishonesty" than were reported and that school cheated its way into academic excellence. WP:UNDUE among other defects.72.194.125.162 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Anyone else agree with the IPs' changing of the lead? [3] --NeilN talk to me 03:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not me, obviously. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
IPs that are from around that area? Why wouldn't we trust their edits? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The lead is well-sourced, conforms to Wikipedia policies, and should stay.--Dalton D. Hird 03:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it must go. One cannot find these statements in the cited articles: (1) That Corona del Mar High School has "serious social problems" and (2) that these "serious social problems" cause (your phrase was "resulting in") "sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence and academic dishonesty." The cited articles do not support the description that the school caused criminal activity, nor should this encyclopedia.174.240.32.14 (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read the first post at Talk:Corona_del_Mar_High_School#A_message_to_CdM_IP_censors. As a meatpuppet recruited to "defend" CdMHS, you're biased to the point of being incapable of actually helping, so your continued presence is only going to discourage us from removing the material. If you actually care about the article, leave and let level headed people with no connection to the school handle it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Charming, aren't we? The way the article reads now the school creates criminals. That says all we need to know about editors who refuse to correct it.72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You know, if it wasn't for your continued pestering, regular editors would focus on cutting out undue material and neutrally phrasing well sourced material? You are responsible for the article's current state, because you are delaying proper action. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Presuming good faith, I won't call you on that whopper. I look forward to "proper action."72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Corona del Mar High School hacking incident

Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC. I initially questioned the need for a formal close here, but I see that edits on this issue are continuing so I suppose it may be useful. The consensus of the editors who commented here is that information about the controversies should be kept in the article. Of course, this conclusion doesn't address how the material is presented (such as how much weight to give it), so any relevant edits can still be proposed, with future RfCs if necessary. To the IP editor: there was no problem with this being an RfC, although there isn't anything wrong with requesting input from a Wikiproject like WPSCH either. Sunrise (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article includes references to controversies connected with Corona del Mar High School, including an incident where a tutor helped students hack the school's computers to change their grades. This incident in particular (as revealed on the talk page) is reported in over a dozen news sources (the majority coming up in just the first three pages of a general Google search), more the sources national than not. Should the material be removed as "disparaging", undue weight and/or "bad coverage"; should it be allowed per WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:NOTCENSORED; or should it be given its own article? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The above request should be directed to WP:WPSCH. 70.209.206.248 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • 'Delete and rewrite per WP:UNDUE, and per WP:NPOV, fails WP:RS, WP:SYN, and WP:BULLOCKS. The bot sent me. This lede contains a weasel POV pushing sentence: It has been described as a school where some students have serious problems, resulting in several high-profile instances of sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence and academic dishonesty. These claims are based on an L.A. Times article that is essentially opinion and definitely not investigative journalism, an OC blog, and another opinion type piece in the Orange County Register. These commentaries, without any basis in fact, are not enough to make such a sweeping claim of wrong doing that involves the entire school and it's culture. You can't make over-the-top claims based on such poor sources. If a state regulatory agency had investigated and found all this, I'd say, yes use it. But that's not the case here.
  • None of the cheating students, the private tutor, the principal, the drama teacher, or even the drama club president, are at the school any longer. Also, the tutor got a student to put a USB into a school computer port to record keystrokes. He then changed the grades. The Newport Beach Police arrested the guy. here and here.
  • The drama surrounding the production of "Rent" was apparently created by the drama teacher, Ron Martin, who seems to have got into a pissing contest with the principal, Fal Arsani. The principal wanted to read the script before the production, because a recent school production of another play had prompted a comment from a distressed parent. Dr. Arsani was apparently trying to head off another complaint. It seems Ron Martin didn't like that, so he went to his Union rep and apparently called the L.A. Times to claim homophobia. The principal finally got the script, read it, and approved the play. But apparently, that didn't satisfy one of the students who promptly notified the ACLU. They showed up, threatened a lawsuit, and got a fast settlement.
  • Btw, I might have missed something, but not once did I read anywhere that GLAAD was involved. It's all about the drama teacher's claims that somebody else 'may have heard' slurs. It's his opinion that there is 'creeping homophobia.' But he doesn't offer any evidence or examples. I guess he thought the L.A. Times wouldn't bother to go find the other side of that story.[4]
  • In the fall of 2009, the drama teacher got himself involved in his own drama. A student accused him of 'battery' and he was put on administrative leave while he was being investigated. He quit soon after. [5].
  • The facts are these: the play did not get 'national acclaim' as the source, wait for it, The Daily Pilot, claims. The principal was not homophobic, the school is not homophobic, etc. There are no reliable sources to show that the school has an endemic culture of high-profile instances of sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence and academic dishonesty. For these types of claims you need a reliable source that is based on a regulatory agency investigation that makes these findings.
  • Given that only one side of the story has been presented in the article, the 'controversies' section is skewed. It needs to be deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The above bullet points are not sourced; where is this coming from? Is this a first-person account of these controversies? If so, this is not considered a reliable source. The sentence in the lead under question is well-sourced and sums up several major points in the article as specified in WK policy. I have added additional cites throughout article to address some of these concerns. --Dalton D. Hird 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are sourced: You can read the entire story in the sources provided above and here: Cheating students expelled here. Grade hacking teacher arrested here. Article that gives both sides of the story on the “Rent” controversy here and Drama teacher involved in battery investigation; quits job at Corona Del Mar High here. I Googled this and discovered both sides of the story which the "controversy" section of this article does not explain at all. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been said repeatedly on this talk page, there are over a dozen RSs on the hacking incident. "We need to adjust the language" is a different matter from "We need to remove it." Given WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, adjusting the language would be preferable. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, Agree, I should have said, 'rewrite this.' The hacking incident is real, but the claims of 'gender-based violence' and the homophobia claims wrt to play, that is all alleged. The principal denied that, saying she only wanted to read the script as there had been a previous issue with another play. Perhaps a separate article would be appropriate here. But it must not make the claim that the entire student body and faculty of this school is homophobic, and practicing gender-based violence. Etc. That's my concern. And I am an uninvolved editor here. A request for comment by outsiders was requested. This is how someone reading this for the first time, without any knowledge of this, reacts to the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The coverage of the RENT cancellation and Facebook death threats are well-sourced per Wikipedia guidelines, with multiple respected national news sources, and even international news sources, covering the story and its associated events for well over a year. Indeed, these events are even mentioned in the latest news coverage of the "hacking" incidents. The additional documentation of the ways in which this case has been cited to set state and federal cyberbullying legislation is also well sourced. Please see years of discussion on this topic in the Talk page history. --Dalton D. Hird 17
10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The hacking / key logging / grade changing controversy was widely reported: OC Register, CBS Los Angeles, New York Daily News, Ars Technica, Southern California Public Radio, ABC Eyewitness News, OC Register. Other CdMHS controversies have also been widely reported, for instance the prom date draft[6][7][8][9][10] and the staging of the play Rent.[11][12][13][14][15] OC Weekly joked that the school "May Be the Incubator of Orange County's Evils". The school has definitely been in the news, much of it controversial and significant. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly neutralize. As an uninvolved party, which RfCs are suppose to attract, the hacking event appears to have received significant coverage, however as an event I question whether it meets persistent impact, therefore this article make a good home for it. That being said if there is a question about how much weight it is given in this article or the wording, perhaps through discussion and consensus the wording can be neutralized. As for the other allegations, such as the thing in the lead, the opinion of one source shouldn't be given undue weight in this article. If multiple sources give similar opinions, it can be included attributing those opinions to their holders, but done so in a way similar to how the perception of a location is documented elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: My take on it is that it falls under WP:NOTCENSORED. I live in Maine (the other side of the country), and I remember seeing something about this on the 10 o`clock news. This tells me that this is a nationally recognized incident. Sure, the end result may be an article that has a negative overall feel to it. Don't like that? Find some nationally covered news articles that report good things to balance it out. Until that happens, it's just going to seem negative. That being said, make sure that we are as tactful as possible and accurately reflecting the facts in a neutral tone. "This is what happened, period.". — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential rewrite of controversy portions

While it's agreed that the article should address some of the school's controversies, in order to make sure that there is no WP:OR or WP:UNDUE weight, those portions of the article may need to be rewritten. From the articles mentioned earlier, we can definitely include:

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I would use care in using the OC Weekly as a source. Although it has some good investigative journalism, it often is sensationalistic and has a tabloid approach. Bahooka (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's why for the article portions, I'm recommending other sources first. The only time I'd use OC Weekly by itself is in the intro, merely because it mentions most of the incidents that are better sourced later in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Bahooka (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree and thanks.--Dalton D. Hird 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

To the relentless critics of CdM above: This editor does NOT agree with your changes. The article remains hopelessly biased--while CdM is one of the best high schools in the U.S. it is shamefully portrayed in this article. (Redacted) The inevitable conflict is reflected in the archived talk pages.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you're:
...we really don't care what you think -- especially since you have no policies or guidelines on your side. The only reason I don't fuss at Dalton for also POV pushing is that he's merely counterbalancing your bigotry-driven propaganda. Yes, bigotry-driven, because there's no other way to describe the now-redacted rant you originally posted.
In short: your "help" is not appreciated. I'd rather spend my time working on something else, but each time you bother us by trying to censor this article to fit your tiny little worldview pushes me closer and closer to creating a Corona del Mar High School hacking incident article and working on it until it gets good article status and is posted on the front page.
Now, do you want to assume good faith from others, and quit trying to whitewash the article, or do you want to let folks with no involvement with or attitude toward the entire state of California handle this? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite done

I have rewritten the article (except the Sports section) to focus on nationwide attention, in chronological order, positive and negative, with as flat and neutral a summary of the sources as possible. As such, I've removed the tags regarding due weight, NPOV, and such. I left the intro alone because it still summarizes the article with appropriate weight (as for the intro's wording, I would much rather chew on an angry puff adder than try and satisfy everyone there). I do not care what clear COI agitators think of its current state, but would like input (or you know, article work) from other level-headed editors. Dalton, that's your signal to just sit this one out so the IP's can't bitch and moan without looking like a bunch of censorship-happy propagandists. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, thank you for all your hard work on this very contentious school article. I've been watching it for a couple years and have come close to just stubbing it and starting over a few times. Just a couple constructive criticisms. The leader of a school is a principal not a principle. The last sentence of the paragraph beginning "In May 2014" is clunky to the point of not really making sense and lastly, with all the emphasis on the recent controversies, it is somewhat WP:RECENT. Good work on a tough issue. John from Idegon (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think I worked those out except for concerns about recentism. I think last sentence problem was caused by me ending a sentence and then continuing it, and losing my focused as I went to go rage on my faulty router again.
I've adjusted the summary of the LA Times piece to be more like the summary of the Atlantic piece (focusing only on the draft, as the LA Times piece only gives a portion of its space to other controversies). I moved the Atlantic piece after that (as I'm under the impression that it might've been an indirect response to the LA Times piece). I've also tried to clarify that the OC Weekly piece was in response to the prom draft, but discussed several controversies over the years as part of its argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Much better. From my perspective, a good way to go down the road with this article would be to add more content to the history section emphasising earlier history then make merge the controversy section into it. IMO, controversy sections, quite like popular culture sections, are open invitations to add crap to articles. Doing that, and finishing the athletic section 's referencing, will make this a solid C, approaching a B. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for this good work. --Dalton D. Hird 04:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This editor disagrees. The article is back to its old biased format, now made worse by the burial of the school's outstanding academic performance in a redundantly-titled "National attention and controversies" section.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. You are back to your old biased arguing. The "national attention" section allows it to simply address the issue "what nationwide attention has the school received?" That is a neutral topic, and if you don't like it, clearly the bias lies on your part. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment invited on "Controversies"

Comment is invited on the Controversies section. In this editor's opinion undue emphasis is placed on isolated incidents, several of which do not involve the school. Please see archived discussion pages for background.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The section addresses what nationwide attention the school has received. You have a history of tendentiously trying to whitewash the article to promote your personal vision of the school instead of what sources say. There is no reason to accomodate you, POV-pusher. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor is WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The edits and history belie that statement. Read them. It may help if you have your English dictionary in hand.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It might help if you actually bothered to read links people provide you with. Your edit history clearly shows you are here to whitewash the article, not build an informative encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of psychological projection? BTW I provided the link.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with projection, and it's completely ironic that you bring it up. Your only edits are to continually try to censor this article. I have edits to a variety of subjects, and a history of restoring neutrality to articles. You are clearly affiliated with Corona del Mar HS. I live on the other side country and have never even been to California.
The WP:NOTHERE link is what was being referred to. WP:NOTHERE is an essay about users who are not here to build an informative encyclopedia (that covers the good and the bad as long as there's sources), but do other stuff like censor articles or push a promotional POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP is now citing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#OS, saying it "must be adhered to". It's not a policy, or even a guideline. The section they cite consists of suggestions for filling out an empty article, not a set template that all school articles must adhere to, and there is nothing in the entire essay saying that controversial nationwide attention should not be covered (as that would go against WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a foundational site policy). Their citation of that essay is nothing but WP:WIKILAWYERing, plain and simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Ian Thompson is edit warring. Stop it.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this section doesn't seem undue to me. wia (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
72.194: You've reverted more than I have.
Wikiisawesome: thank you, it is good to hear from previously uninvolved editors. It is worth something to me, even if the IP is going to be upset that the article isn't just an advertisement for the school. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
With Bahooka's addition today, we are approaching some balance, however there still needs to be something for the period from 1975 to 2009. And as I stated before, there is too much copy on the "controversy" stuff. It's all accurate, but way to detailed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a history book. My preference would be to cut the copy back to 2-3 sentences on each of the controversies, with the best couple refs on each, and roll it all into the history section. Perhaps recentism is a better description than undue. this is the quick summary IMHO of the weight of historical info in the article: Opened in 1962, some sort of addition that wasn't that important sometime around 1975, a bunch of stuff that is really important around 2010, and a more important remodel in 2015. I doubt that is an accurate portrait of this school. John from Idegon (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thought I would chime in, as I went to this school so I will keep my comments and edits here alone, (class of 1980). I have to agree that the controversy section hold way way too much copy. The school has so many other features and aspects that are being disregarded here and that section is overwhelming. I have other photos (aerial's) that I could upload and back in my day we too had a series of issues that became newsworthy but it did not make the historic or encyclopedic for that matter value of the school itself. Other then taking the lead photo (and going to this school IN 1975). I am uninvolved and the plays being canceled is not encyclopedic enough for generations ahead to be enlightened to this single issue. Talk about the school, reduce that to one line and talk about the buildings and campus. I have great stories from the 1970's but those hold no value to todays reader, just as that matter will hold no consideration whatsoever to a generations yet to be born. talk→ WPPilot  07:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: The current featured Controversies section regarding "play being canceled". talk→ WPPilot  02:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The cancellation of the play RENT! and the school's failure to protect a female student and several supposedly gay students when they were threatened in a video by 3 senior athletes, were all part of the 2009 ACLU lawsuit against the school. These stories and the lawsuit gained national and international news coverage and is by far the most widely-reported event in the school's history. In fact, the school has not gained national and international attention for any other event. Additionally, please read the talk page as there has already been a great deal of productive discussion on this topic (with many excellent citations), including that the Corona del Mar High ACLU lawsuit was the first legal action to insist that "cyberbullying" among students at the same school must be addressed by school officials just as it would if said bullying were done on campus. This was ground-breaking and prescient: now in most state education codes (including CA) and federal education codes exactly such an approach to cyberbullying is legally mandated. In fact, because of the legal and cultural significance of these events at the school, the facts of the ACLU RENT!/Cyberbullying case was read into the Federal Congressional Record by Representative Loretta Sanchez (Santa Ana) in 2009 and, it continues to be cited by legal scholars and social media experts. There are citations for this in the article - or there were before this recent *far-too-extensive* re-editing. And, I'm tired of having to re-write this every 6 or 8 months. Please read the article history before editing. Dalton D. Hird 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonHird: please see your talk page for the reply to this overwhelmingly biased statement and please disclose your relationship to this school. If you like I will open a request for comments to obtain the insight of seasoned editors. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  04:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

RFC closed - 4/24/2015 To my fellow editors. This is a forty five year old high school, in affluent community, (Newport Beach, California) that, over the last 5 years has had some coverage and legal issue that have been uncovered. First let me disclose that I once went to this school, in 1976-1979 & took all three photos, so my COI has been disclosed but another editor seems to have drafted a version that contains more on the negative aspects of the location, then on its true 45 year history or the facility itself. I can attest to the fact that in many ways things have not changed as the school is truly a reflection of the community but that aside, should the lead contain the issues as noted above by editor @DaltonHird: and have the perception of a dysfunctional school, in the lead. Thank you in advance for your comments. talk→ WPPilot  04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section Dalton D. Hird 05:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making this post. Well bias is, of course, always something worth guarding against. I don't know about the "the school is truly a reflection of the community," but it's obvious there's a lot of passion from the editors on the Corona Del Mar high school page and which version of the page, and by extension the school's publicly available reputation. Reading through some of the comments, I'm sad to see it becoming so personal for some, though community has a certain way of wrangling in support for factions, be them implicit or otherwise. In situations like this, when users and editors are calling each other out for blatant bias and unfair value judgments, I feel that WPPilot made the right first step in initiating this discussion in particular. My position is simple; lay out the facts. See what all there is to be said by those credibly sourced or backed by someone credibly sourced and make a page that has both sides neatly organized in a case by case manner. I mean, that's why we have sections, right? Chewbakadog (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
NP on starting the RFC, my issue is that according to this page the school that was built in 1970 has 5 years of history and its all bad. That does not reflect the "History" of the school, it reflects the bad things people were caught doing at it over the last 5 years, a far cry from the History of the High School. talk→ WPPilot  05:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
WPPilot Please do add additional sections covering the missing years and we can then add *brief* reference to them in the Lead Section.Dalton D. Hird 06:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@DaltonHird: that is not how this process works, please wait for others to chime in, the process takes about a week and, once others provide comment the changes that are needed will be addressed. Thanks for your understandingtalk→ WPPilot  13:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The current introductory section does not adequately summarize the school's history as presented in the article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stepheng3: @Epicgenius: @Mlpearc: @Libertarian12111971: Then the same would hold true for Columbine High School a high school that just about every American knows all about, who's header provides foundation for information about the school, not what some of the students did to it. I have added three user's that did the editing on that page. That page has undergone a great deal of editorial scrutiny and the information regarding the bad behavior of the students is in the body of the page and even links to a sub page about the tragedy. USC & UCLA whom all have had its share of issues, have no mention of the legal issues that have been waged, by the ACLU in the courts upon them in the headers, I would think the same logic would apply here. This is about a school created in 1962 yet the only history it has is negative and no more then 5 years old? That is not history, those are student issues and may well deserve its own page, as mentioned above. talk→ WPPilot  01:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@WPPilot: There are millions of Wikipedia articles with incomplete introductions. That does not mean that this one should also have an incomplete introduction. You asked for my opinion, and now you have it.—Stepheng3 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

My 2c: The current version mostly looks to me (in its lead, history section, and sports section) like an accurate summary of recent newsworthy events at the school. But the "perception" section is pure editorial opinion, not factual, and I think not encyclopedic. It is also not an accurate description of the overall perception of the school, as it focuses purely on the scandals and doesn't mention the recent high rankings, which are also part of its perception. It may be supported by reliable sources but I don't think it is a helpful contribution to the article and I would prefer to see it removed. Full disclosure: I live about 2 miles from the school, and have friends whose kids go there, but am not in its district. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as a general comment concerning this idea that looks to be at the root of the RfC: my issue is that according to this page the school that was built in 1970 has 5 years of history and its all bad. That does not reflect the "History" of the school. Wikipedia does not cover topics in proportion to the number of years it has existed but according to the coverage of aspects of the subject in reliable sources.
There is an inevitable bias towards recent coverage on Wikipedia given the ease with which sources these days can be disseminated and accessed. This is an acknowledged problem. I think the consensus opinion is that while we do need to cover aspects of a subject in proportion to those aspects' presence in the body of literature available on the subject, we should be mindful of our "recentism" bias and do everything we can to provide due historical information/context. It's a difficult balance. Ultimately, however, if most sources about subject X talk about Y, Y needs to appear prominently in the article about X.
As for what to do here, I agree with David Eppstein that the "Perception" section isn't appropriate. In fact when I looked at the sources it cites, I didn't see the quote mentioned in any of them, nevermind "many" people saying it's "a school with serious social problems". It's also unneeded synthesis when our coverage of those incidents should make perfectly clear that those problems exist.
I've kind of overhauled the history section. Reworded, copyedited, tweaked, but mostly reorganized so it's prose rather than a timeline.
The real question, however, is whether this merits some sort of "Controversies" section. In general, "criticism" sections should be avoided, with the information included in more encyclopedic sections, but at the same time it currently dominates the history section. Pending additional sources to build out the rest of the content there, it may be more appropriate as a separate or sub-section. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thank you for your comments and efforts, the page looks much better now. I have closed the RFC and unless someone objects, we will for now consider this as resolved. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  03:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Whether part of an RfC or another discussion, it does seem like there are a couple open questions still. Personally, I don't think an RfC is necessary -- I think we can likely come to some sort of consensus here -- but we'll see. The first question, as I mentioned above, is whether there should be a separate section along the lines of "controversies". The second question is how (or whether) to cover that part in the lead. I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other, but the lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article, so if something occupies roughly 1/4-1/3 of it, it should probably be mentioned. WPPilot is there a wording, perhaps very brief, that you would support including in the lead? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites:& @David Eppstein:: I think your right in that we are well on the way to a quality page. I would have to agree the a comment about recent controversy in the head and have a section "controversy" in the body. As you have noted before many of the refs contained little of what was being claimed. My example was listed above, that school is as well known in the minds eye of the public then just about any other, a sub page on the issue, no, we have not crossed that threshold but the restructured format of the current version is in fact far more encyclopedic then it has been in the past. Answer: Mention in header "Over recent years the school's had a number of controversy's" and section on "Controversy's" in the body. David, can I ask for your thoughts here kind sir?... talk→ WPPilot  04:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Rhododendrites' edits grouping controversies by type rather than the previous chronological organization is an improvement, as it makes them have more of a pattern and less of just a sequence of random events. I agree that the lead section needed some mention of the controversies, but I don't think it needs to be very long — a half sentence should be fine. I just added one, also mentioning the sports victories in the lead, so that it provides a more accurate summary of the whole article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Corona del Mar High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 02:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"bubblin crude"

   The apparently unanswered first talk contrib (or rather, the top-of-page section at the time the #1 archive of this talk page was last added to) bears the (presumably retrofitted) heading "2007 comment" and reads

What's a "bubblin crude"? The first notable alum apparently discovered one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.191.2(talk) 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Ah, but that's bubblin', perhaps mis-transcribing (from the original sound track) either

...some bubblin' crude

or (with o' representing a contraction of "of")

...o' bubblin' crude

but in either case concerned with "bubbling crude oil". (Now, of course, for all i know, the query may just be a lame joke by the above unsigned colleague. If so, enjoy, below, the spectacle of my nevertheless taking the question seriously.)
  Clearly someone was invoking the talkin' blues portion of the (mock hillbilly) theme-music lyric for a TV sitcom called The Beverly Hillbillies, said lyric having used the term to apply to a fictional petroleum source (revealed by chance as a result of a shotgun blast, IIRC) from which crude [oil] had oozed or spurted from the ground, perhaps sometimes punctuated (one might surmise) by literal bubbles, rather than mere surges in the flow. (Such literal bubbles might be described as bubbles of air, but they are IMO far more plausible if actually bubbles of natural gas. The conjunction of natural gas and a shotgun blast, BTW, could justify an exciting special-effect scene near the start of the first episode, for all i know, as i never saw it.)
  The show's premise was that the fictional Clampett family (to whom the title referred),

  • owned at least the mineral rights for the underlying oil-bearing formation,
  • somehow escaped being completely fleeced by the advisers they acquired, and
  • embraced the opportunity to live among more or less comparably filthy-rich folk in Beverly Hills.

(IIRC, the patience shown by their new business associates and even neighbors suggests they perhaps all "were rather much less than more" wealthy than the Clampetts.)
   The selection of Beverly Hills by the Clampetts as their new residence (they hailed from the hills of Appalachia) perhaps was supposed to reflect a misapprehension on their part, to the effect that the longer established residents of this new neighborhood were also hill-people, and thus sure to be culturally compatible.
   Returning to the context from which the question arose, it suddenly occurs to me to wonder whether the alum in question could have grown up and become the actor who played Jed Clampett on TV, rather than having been in the oil business.
--Jerzy•t 11:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016


io Timmayrules123 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't provide a description of the change you want to make? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

enrolment

Current enrollment is 2,618RoryFinn (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you source that? Meters (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corona del Mar High School. 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) 08:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant info?

The inclusion of minority and economic disadvantage stats seems unnecessary and the stats are inaccurate based on the cited source. Any objections to its removal? --TheBearNYC (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not from me. Even if we do report on this type of information it would be better to simply list the NCES demographic data https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0627240&ID=062724004109 , which is almost certainly the original source of the data., rather than lump as "minorities" Meters (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

possible alumnus Vanness Wu

Vanness Wu was removed from the alumni list after having being tagged for requiring a source for his attendance for two years. Multiple IPs have attempted to restore this entry, most recently by using Google Search as a ref. That's not a source. I know that Google Search returns lots of hits, but as far as I can see none of them are independent reliable sources. Most of them appear to be copies of what Wikipedia said, while others are user-generated sites. Please do not restore this entry without a reliable source.See WP:RS. Meters (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

After yet another addition of Vanness Wu, I have temporarily semi-protected this article so that discussion can proceed here instead. However, the latest addition included a (misformatted) YouTube link as a source, claiming that it included Wu discussing being a student at CDM. I haven't viewed the video myself but I would welcome discussion here about whether this video can be considered as a reliable source. The video link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t50adxVONk&t=1s —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein:I've removed another unsourced addition. I would not accept this video as a source:
  1. I have no reason to doubt it, but I can't actually tell you if that really is Vanness Wu speaking. It's not on a verified social media platform. It's A YouTube post by someone I've never heard of with all of 33 followers, so it's likely to be a scrape from elsewhere on the web. I mean, what are the changes that someone with 33 followers videoed Vanness Wu during the Covid lockdown? So, this link may be a copyright violation. Not an insurmountable problem. Assuming it is him and we can find an original verified post of the video we could use that version.
  2. Unfortunately he does not actually say that he attended the school in the video. He just mentions the school demographics briefly at 5:30 . We would have to assume that he mentions the school because he attended, but it's not a justifiable assumption. He could have been aware of the school demographics for several other reasons (friend or family member attended, media coverage, etc). Meters (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

Change principal from Kathy Scott to Joshua Hill JettColl (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. "Principal" entry removed from the infobox; names of specific staff members don't belong here unless they're otherwise notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Add Principals

1. Principals should be shown as it is relevant information to someone looking up the school on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JettColl (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Deacon Vorbis, heads of schools are normally listed in infoboxes. That's why there are headteacher/principal fields in the infobox. We don't list lower level staff, and the vice principal field has been eliminated. Meters (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
That's...odd. Staff turns over. We don't list non-notable spouses (or other relatives) in a person infobox despite having fields there. Knowing the name of the current principal tells you absolutely nothing about the school and is of no interest to the general reader. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, staff does turn over. One could say the same thing about members of professional sports teams or CEOs of companies. If you disagree with the norm of listing heads of schools in school infoboxes even if not notable then I suggest you raise the issue at the schools project WP:WPSCHOOLS. Meters (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corona_del_Mar_High_School/Archive_2&oldid=1150061599"