Talk:Santa Fe Preparatory School

United States: New Mexico Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Mexico portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico.

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

well done ...tell us a bit more ... alumni.... refs and pics welcome Victuallers 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section[edit]

The "Controversy" section is libelous and lacks any third-party verification. Moreover, the legal references to the US Constitution are completely legally inaccurate (the 5th Amendment does not apply to private actors, only state actors - please see any Constitutioanl Law textbook or reference for verification of this fact). I believe this was added maliciously by someone with a grudge against the school (likely a disgruntled former student or employee). PLEASE DELETE THIS SECTION. Kgfisher (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)kgfisher[reply]

Followup[edit]

The controversy section keeps being removed and re-added. I'm going to go remove it again, and would strongly suggest that it stay that way, for the following reasons:

The Constitution doesn't apply. As User:KGFisher says, it doesn't apply to "private actors," just acts of government. Mr. Leonard could give someone a detention every single day for something they did once, and it's not unconstitutional, just unfair.
It's not notable. This is an encyclopedia. That some people are unhappy with the headmaster isn't something that goes in an encyclopedia.
It's chock full of weasel words, which don't belong here.
Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines on criticism state that "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not... appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented... in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." (Emphasis is mine, stressing the points that don't appear, to me, to fit.)

Fogster (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional language.[edit]

I removed a lot of peacock terms from this article. It used the phrase "nestled in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains" not once, but twice. Sheesh! This is not a real estate listing, and mentioning how historic Santa Fe is, or how historic the neighborhood is, isn't helpful. Junk like this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been copied from promotional sources.Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]