Talk:Corona del Mar High School/Archive 1

2007 comment
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)

Michael Steele
There has been some confusion regarding Michael Steele as an alumna of Corona Del Mar High School. I deleted it once because 1) The name listed links to Susan Thomas, the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood, that does not appear to be the same person, 2) the WP article on Michael Steele makes no mention of a different name, and 3) the only article I saw about Michael Steele of The Bangles said she grew up in Huntington Beach, so she would not have attended CdM High School. She may well have attended that high school, but I don't see any citation for that.  That is why I left a fact tag, but the tag was removed without a citation.  I am removing again until a citation from a reliable source is added.  Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Steele
There are different sources, a bio of her with the Runaways says she was born Susan Thomas and changed her name to Micki Steele after joining the band. ( http://max-inc.com/testsites/therunaways/08_09_02/07_micki.htm).

Susan Thomas did attend and graduate from Corona del Mar High School in 1973. The only confirmed source I have are issues of the Ebbtide, Corona del Mar High School's yearbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.78.232 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved observer
I just took a good long hard look at this article and its citations. My only previous involvement in this article was to note that an editorial was being used as a reliable source. Other than the specific sentence that the editorial refers to, I never even read the article before today, nor was I previously aware that Corona del Mar High School existed, despite living in the same county. I still have zero interest in the topic, but I have a keen interest in Wikipedia doing a proper job of covering it. Here are my observations:

The first thing I noticed was that the statement based upon Daily Pilot editorial is still there. As soon as I finish writing this, out it goes, and if anyone wants to put it back, they had better make a good case on the talk page first, because it clearly does not meet Wikipedia's standards. If anyone puts it back without discussion, that misbehavior will be dealt with in the usual way.

Second, the multiple tags are way over the top given the shape the article is in. I am going to delete the lot of them without prejudice and open up a discussion here about which, if any, belong and whether we can fix the issues rather than tagging them. In general, tags should be used as a way of marking an article that is not getting attention from editors, not as a "badge of shame" or a backhanded way to score points in a content dispute that should stay on the talk page. If anyone wants the tags back in, please pick one, start a discussion here on the talk page, and seek consensus. Then repeat with the next tag.

Third, concerning weight and length of sections, please look at Columbine High School. Something very notable happened there, and yet we are able to cover it in two paragraphs, one of which is about a major remodel of the school. If anyone wants the ACLU lawsuit or the Rent incident to have far more detail than the Columbine page has about the massacre, feel free to create a separate page like the one at Columbine High School massacre, but be aware that such an article will almost certainly be nominated for deletion for being non-notable, so I advise studying Articles for deletion first and make sure the page has citations establishing notability.

Lastly, looking at the discussion on the talk page, I have this to say to 68.4.61.51; you are completely out of line. You are being combative and uncivil. The actual direction you want this page to move towards is not obviously wrong or obviously right, and a calm, reasoned discussion with a lot of attention paid to Wikipedia policy might very well result in most of what you want becoming the consensus, but the path you are on now will only result in your misbehavior rather than the article content becoming the center of attention. So please, calm down, stop talking about other editors, typing in ALL CAPS, etc. and make a fresh start. I would also encourage the other editors to help him make a fresh start by being extra cordial and nonaggressive. Subsequent misbehavior has convinced me that we need to follow a "No Tolerance" policy instead. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * Sorry to run afoul of your little WikiCulture, but I respectfully suggest that you take a few steps out of your Ivory Tower and experience the real world. To defame is to inflame and this article does just that--it is harming reputations every day.


 * This article deserves tagging: 173 words devoted to the Columbine Massacre in that high school's article; 163 words to a failed lawsuit here. If someone doesn't fix this problem of balance and objectivity, I will retag. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Re: your continued violations of WP:CIVIL: You have been blocked once already. If you don't stop your misbehavior, you will be blocked again, and eventually banned from Wikipedia. WP:CIVIL is not optional.
 * Re: "It is harming reputations", we are all very much concerned about this possibility and will work to make sure that this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Your continued violations of WP:CIVIL are not making that easy. Are you by any chance one of the individuals you refer to? Do you have some connection to Corona del Mar High School that we should know about?


 * Re: "If someone doesn't fix this problem of balance and objectivity, I will retag": Exactly what part of "please pick one tag, start a discussion here on the talk page, and seek consensus. Then repeat with the next tag." are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was blocked by an administrator who has recused him/herself for taking sides in the discussion. Your characterization of my comments as "misbehavior" and threat to ban me for criticizing this article and questioning the objectivity of its editing is equally offensive.


 * No, but I am in the community and know this article portrays the school in a false light. I note with some amusement you are the same editor who threatened me about raising COI issues.  You should heed your own advice if you expect others to follow it.68.4.61.51 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You've made your arguments and they've been rejected by multiple editors. Now you're resorting to personal attacks and threats to edit war in the face of clear consensus.  Unless you have some new evidence or arguments, it's time for you to walk away from this one.  You're not helping your cause anymore and in fact you're doing it great harm.  Move on, please. ElKevbo (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the Talk page before you delete my tags. Even Qwryxian admits: "Finally, though, a point I think we can agree on (yeah!): the chronology does seem to be wrong."68.4.61.51 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Exactly what part of "please pick one tag, start a discussion here on the talk page, and seek consensus. Then repeat with the next tag." are you having trouble understanding? Further attempts to re-insert tags without discussion will be reverted on sight as the vandalism they are.  The correct response to a perceived flaw in the content of a Wikipedia page is to discuss the content on the talk page, reach consensus, and fix the page.  Drive-by tagging does nothing to improve the article.


 * Also, I have repaired your violations of talk page guidelines several times now. This is disruptive behavior. If you keep this up -- placing a reply anywhere except directly under an earlier comment that you are replying to -- I am going to seriously consider deleting your comment as vandalism rather than spending a lot of time repairing the damage. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, here's my reply, hopefully arriving in its Wiki-proper place directly under your comment: Please see the detailed discussion above, which got diverted with personal attacks against me, on the  way the Controversies section inverts the chronology of the ACLU lawsuit and the alleged events covered in it, which magnifies and misrepresents their significance.  And, by the way, I did "pick one tag".  The discussion is above and hopefully will continue when someone (I dare not make any changes for fear of a mob attack) takes steps to correct it.68.4.61.51 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Yes, you did did "pick one tag". What you failed to do was to "start a discussion here on the talk page, and seek consensus", choosing instead to re-insert the tag without discussion.


 * I welcome the comment above indicating that you might be willing to at last discuss content without personal attacks. Please see the section that follows this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Balance, objectivity and neutrality
68.4.61.51 appears to believe that there is an error in the chronology. If there is an error, we of course want to fix it. This section is for discussing that aspect of the article's content. Please avoid all personal pronouns; talk about the article, not the editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 173 words were devoted to the Columbine Massacre in that high school's WP article; 163 words to the unproven allegations of a single lawsuit here. CdM has a distinguished 50 year history and consistently ranks in the top 1% of the nation's high schools, yet the Controversies section for this article is five times as long as its Academics section and is devoted to a single lawsuit that was dropped almost immediately. This is unbalanced coverage and is inappropriate for a general reference article on the school.68.4.61.51 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Before we get into the objection above, you have quoted "the chronology does seem to be wrong" several times so far. Is there some chronology-related mistake you want addressed?


 * The Columbine article has a short summary that links to a much larger Wikipedia page. It cannot be compared to an article that tries to fit an incident on the article's page without linking to a much longer page.  Did you wish to create a separate page about the ACLU lawsuit?  If so, I think we could trim the mention on this page to a single sentence.  Given that we don't have a separate article, I don't see how two paragraphs are excessive, nor do I see how we can cover that much material with a shorter section. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, see the above discussion on this page.


 * No, not unless WP has articles on every ACLU lawsuit. This one was of no legal significance as it did not go to trial. While I don't agree with including this, here is how the section could be shortened: "In 2009 the school cancelled and then reinstated a student production of Rent.[6] Subsequently, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of women students and LGBT students at the school, accusing the school of "fostering a 'sexist' and 'homophobic' atmosphere". The school offered to provide training about sexism and homophobia and the lawsuit was dismissed."68.4.61.51 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Guy Macon has pointed out the key difference w/Columbine High School--it's using summary style, wherein a very long sub-topic is placed on a separate page. 68, you have to understand, if this is the big issue that has made this school nationally famous, this is the issue that will occupy a large portion of the article. Is it too much? Perhaps.  Let me take a look later today and I'll see if I can come up with suggestions about ways to trim and fix the chronology while I'm at it.  However, I still would like you to confirm that the chronology I posted is correct.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand it the revised chronology you propose is correct, although reference to the Facebook video does not belong in this encyclopedia article. I have already described above how its use raises serious issues.


 * The school did not become "nationally famous" as a result of the ACLU matter. A total of six newspaper articles were all that have been found on the subject.  That lack of media interest has led to the citation of a self-serving ACLU press release, in violation of WP policies against use of primary sources and original research.  That footnote should be removed.68.4.61.51 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Re: your claim that "reference to the Facebook video does not belong in this encyclopedia article". yes it does, because it was a prominent part of the ACLU lawsuit.


 * Re: your claim about notability, it appears to be at odds with what the sources say. First, it was in the New York Times,, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Times, and United Press International. In addition, the Orange County Register says that the dispute with the ACLU "continues to simmer — and attract national attention."


 * Re: your claim that citing a ACLU press release violates Wikipedia policies, the policies do not say what you think they do. While an ACLU press release would not be acceptable as a reliable source for most claims, the ACLU is a reliable source for claims about the ACLU, including whether the ACLU settled and dropped the lawsuit. That being said, Wikipedia has a place for you to go if you still think that it is not a reliable source: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This was no Columbine Massacre. There may have been a handful of newspaper articles but no "national attention" was paid.  Media coverage was minor, fleeting, and relegated to the arts and opinion pages.  The ACLU press release is biased; it treats allegations as proven facts:  "ACLU/SC Settles Lawsuit over Orange County High School That Tolerated Homophobia and Sexism".  Fatal chronological errors remain in the article.  Please see my suggestion above, made under protest, for correcting them.68.4.61.51 (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It's ridiculous to say that an incident that was discussed in the New York Time and the Washington Post did not receive national attention. You have stretched WP:AGF to its breaking point and I will no longer assume good faith or competence on your part. ElKevbo (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the Washington Post; it's the Washington Times, an unfiled article. Please respond to the merits, not me.(I am beginning to think it is WP policy that editors must regularly scold other editors for violating WP:AGF and other WP policies (and also threaten to report them) so consider yourself so scolded/warned.) 68.4.61.51 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Washington times did publish a story about it. My apologies for grabbing the wrong URL. A rudimentary search finds the citation.

So, is the claim that the incident did not receive national attention credible? Let me pick a newspaper at random: The San Jose Mercury News. Did they cover it? Yes. (about 2/3 down on the page.)

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WP policy forbids personal attacks (as you constantly remind me) so let's practice what we preach and focus on the article, shall we?  We can disagree as to what degree of news coverage makes something of national significance, but it should be apparent that the Controversies section is bloated relative to the size of the rest of the article, includes an excessive amount of detail, represents disputed allegations as facts, and has a flawed chronology. I have proposed a solution that I don't like but it is better than what exists now.  Unless this is fixed I will tag it again.68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.




 * Two paragraphs is hardly "bloated", and I can find no examples of that section representing disputed allegations as facts.


 * There is overwhelming consensus against the tags you keep threatening to put back in - everyone but you is in agreement on this. Putting the tag back in against consensus will be treated as vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * False, there is an admission the chronology is faulty. Qwryxian admits: "Finally, though, a point I think we can agree on (yeah!): the chronology does seem to be wrong." Read the comments and understand the facts before you threaten another editor with a vandalism charge.  And please follow WP:WP DNB.68.4.61.51 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Do I really need to explain to you the difference between "the chronology does seem to be wrong" (followed by "I will look into it") and "It is OK for 68.4.61.51 to vandalize Wikipedia by repeatedly inserting material that is completely against consensus"? Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and stop exhibiting the behavior it describes. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please tell us, Guy Macon, how your comment above contributes to improving this article? Qwryxian said, "I want to make sure we've got the chronology right."  Are you working on that?  I have proposed a compromise. Are you trying to work towards consensus, or to find an excuse to ban an opposing point of view?68.4.61.51 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Part of improving an article is protecting it from those who wish to twist it to reflect their POV instead of being neutral. My comment contributes to improving this article by refuting a bogus claim that you are touting as being a reason to go against consensus. "The chronology does seem to be wrong" and "It is OK for 68.4.61.51 to vandalize Wikipedia by repeatedly inserting material that is completely against consensus" are not the same no matter how many times you claim that they are. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you contend the chronology is correct?68.4.61.51 (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If you ever decide to enter into good-faith discussions when one of your claims is refuted, you will have earned good-faith responses to your questions. As long as you ignore legitimate objections, you can expect to be ignored as well. Because you appear to be completely ineducable and immune to criticism, I am not going to waste any more time responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I raised a legitimate question about an error in chronology in the Controversies section based not only on my research but that of another editor. Unfortunately, you have refused to discuss it. As the article has not been corrected, I have no choice but to retag it.68.4.61.51 (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You could not get a single person to agree with you, so you decided to just go ahead edit the page to your liking anyway. This is clear vandalism of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting the facts. Another editor, Qwryxian, agreed "the chronology does seem to be wrong."  It is in fact in error. You have vandalized my edits.  I request third party review. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * As has been explained to you several times, agreeing with one thing does not equal agreeing with a completely different thing. Please stop cut-and-pasting the same argument that failed to convince a single person that last dozen times you cut and pasted it. Unless you have something new to say, I am going to ignore you. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * You still have not responded to my question whether you contend the chronology is correct. It is not and it would appear from your effort to turn the discussion towards me and away from the issue you are aware of it.  I don't see how this article can be written fairly and accurately with that sort of editing.68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Removing sourced material
Regarding recent edits to the controversies section, The Los Angeles Times says this:

"While the complaint cites the show's brief cancellation as one example, much of it focuses on the aftermath of a Facebook video posted in January in which three Corona del Mar football players threatened to rape and kill a female classmate and used slurs to describe homosexuals. The video was posted on the online profile of a fourth student, who reportedly threatened the young woman at school. The video has since been removed."

68.4.61.51 then attempted to sanitize this, changing

"...did not adequately discipline three Corona del Mar football players for posting a Facebook video threatening to rape and kill a female classmate and containing slurs against homosexuals."

to

"...did not adequately discipline three students for posting videos including rape threats and slurs against homosexuals."

with the edit comment

"(Undid revision 466618515 by Guy Macon (talk) Prank only, not a genuine death threat. Do not misrepresent.)"

This is troubling. It is becoming clear that 68.4.61.51 cannot be neutral on this topic. This example is especially egregious -- he removed material that clearly reflects what is in the sources based only on an unsourced claim that the LA Times is wrong and that it was a "prank". Also mildly annoying is the accusation that I misrepresented when clearly I did not. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Powerade Fab 50 ESPN Rise National championship trophy?
What is the "Powerade Fab 50 ESPN Rise National championship trophy?" Is it notable? And is ocvarsity.com a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the trophy, although a national trophy by ESPN seems notable. ocvarsity.com is the section of The Orange County Register dealing with high school sports, so it is reliable. 72Dino (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just did some more research. Looks like it's a poll ESPN takes every year to rank high school teams (somebody ought to make a Wikipedia page about it!). Apparently quite a big deal, so definitely notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fostering an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity
On the NPOV noticeboard User:Roscelese asked me to discuss my reasoning behind This edit. in it I changed

"The school denied these allegations, stating that the lawsuit contained numerous factual errors and mistakes, and that school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity."

to

"The school denied these allegations, stating that the lawsuit contained numerous factual errors and mistakes."

My first reason was because Qwyrxian had previously removed it with the edit comment "remove the school's own self-serving claims of being tolerant." While I don't always go along with what other editors decide, it is a factor, especially when the editor has shown himself to be trustworthy.

Secondly, I want to maximize the number of statements that are from newspapers and court filings and minimize the number of statements that are from press releases. The cite is from the LA Times New York Times, but the press release comes from a section prefaced by "The statement read in full." I consider that to be from a source that is a press release.

That being said, "the lawsuit contained numerous factual errors and mistakes" came from the press release, and I left it in. I did so because it is a direct response to the previous statement (which came from an ACLU lawsuit). It just felt neutral to leave it in.

The statement "school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity" (statement made before suit was filed), on the other hand, seemed rather self-serving, especially when it followed in the article by "The case was settled out-of-court when the school agreed to issue an apology to the plaintiff and institute anti-harassment and discrimination training." (which happened after the suit was settled.)

But what finally convinced me was the issue of verifiability. Nowhere did the school list any specific "steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity" that had been taken prior to the lawsuit, which means that I cannot search for a reliable source to back up the claim. In addition, the LA times made it clear that the "steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity" claim was not made in response to the lawsuit, but was instead something that "School officials have noted in the past", Thus I concluded that joining it to the "factual errors and mistakes" claim with an "and" clearly implies that it was in response to the claims in the lawsuit. At the very least it needs to be separated and properly labeled.

It could be argued that we are only saying that they claimed to have taken those steps, but they claimed a lot of things that we didn't include. They claimed they were "in the process of attempting to resolve this matter" when they got sued - again, no specifics - and we didn't include that.

Like so many other things, it was a judgement call on my part, but I think it was the right call. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To remove all doubt the source to which I refer is the NYT article cited in footnote 10, in particular the last paragraph. This mentions specific, verifiable steps involving the ADL that the school had taken to foster tolerance.  I have no idea which LAT article you refer to above.174.254.66.133 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With all respect I think it would be helpful to review why we are here. This is, first and foremost, an article fulfilling a WP policy decision to cover high schools.  It is not an article about a civil rights lawsuit.  The WP guidelines for high school articles do not include a Controversies section, and for good reason.  Adding it would give the false impression the school is highly controversial--a scarlet letter, if you will.  That is not a fair, balanced and neutral.  That aside, all I am asking (which Qwyrxian would accept) is to add these words, attributed to the school (not WP) and sourced in the footnoted NYT article:  ", and that school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity.".   This edit would summarize the following quote from the cited NYT article:


 * "School officials have noted in the past that Corona del Mar officials have taken steps to foster an atmosphere of “tolerance and diversity,” and pointed out that the Anti-Defamation League had designated it as a “No Place For Hate” school.".


 * Responding to the comment that this occured prior to the lawsuit, that is what makes it relevant. The nature of the allegation of fostering intolerance is past behavior.  As for its credibility, that is established sufficient for WP purposes by its appearance in the NYT.  Thus this edit is responsive to the allegations of the complaint, well-sourced, and necessary for balanced coverage.174.254.81.239 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above user (formerly 174.254.81.53 and before that 68.4.61.51) is the reason this article is semi-protected See [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Corona_del_Mar_High_School_-_Controversies_section ]. I also note that the phrase which he claims "Qwyrxian would accept" is the phrase Qwyrxian removed.  The rest of the arguments are the same ones that failed to convince anyone the last ten or so times they were posted. Like a fish, they aren't getting any better with age. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, and you did not respond to the question posed by User:Roscelese as to what would be the harm in including this edit. Bloviating about your "judgment call" is nonresponsive.174.254.66.133 (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IP editor, high schools with notable controversies get controversy sections in their Wikipedia articles. That's how the cards have been dealt to the folks at CDMHS, and that's how we lay it out. As for balanced coverage, the facts are often brought into an article in chronological order, so introducing the idea that "school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity" after the event is misleading the reader. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC).
 * No one would be chronologically mislead by a statement attributed to the school that it had taken steps to foster tolerance. The Controversies section is about claims in a lawsuit which by definition refer to past conduct.  It is impossible to portray the legal controversy with any degree of accuracy without explaining the positions of both sides, not just the one with the most active press department174.254.81.239 (talk)
 * Actually, that's exactly what I thought it meant the first time I read it in the article. It was only after re-checking the source that I realized it was a claim about the past. In any event, that claim doesn't seem to me to be sufficiently related to the controversy--it seems like it's just something the school said prior to this controversy ever happening. If you look at the NYT article, it says, "School officials have noted in the past that Corona del Mar officials have taken steps to foster an atmosphere of “tolerance and diversity,” and pointed out that the Anti-Defamation League had designated it as a “No Place For Hate” school" (emphasis added). That is, the claims by the school had nothing to do with this lawsuit and predated it. The NYT chose to include it in their article, but there is no indication it's actually connected to this controversy. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The NYT recognizes the relevance of past conduct in a lawsuit alleging the school fostered intolerance or its editors would not have showcased it by putting it as the last paragraph in the article, a prominent position. Had the case gone to trial it would have been highly relevant.  This is the first time anyone has claimed chronological confusion over its context in this sentence but that can easily be fixed without excluding this critical piece of information.174.254.66.133 (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has, once again, made a claim ("The NYT article cited in footnote 10, in particular the last paragraph ... mentions specific, verifiable steps involving the ADL that the school had taken to foster tolerance.") that has no basis in reality. That article is totally lacking in "specific, verifiable steps". I advise double checking any assertions made by the IP address. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't consider this incivil, but aren't you the same editor who wrote a note to himself--on this very Talk page--that he should "smoke crack after editing Wikipedia"? The No Place For Hate program Is entirely based on "specific, verifiable steps". Take some time to learn about it before you criticize other editors. The article must include the edit that the school took steps to foster tolerance or it will not be neutral.68.4.61.51 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake 'cracking' a joke for real world activity. Regarding this CDMHS article, the fact that the school took steps to foster tolerance before the intolerance event is very interesting. Same with the fact that CDMHS was a "No Place For Hate" school before the hateful event. So the anti-hate and anti-intolerance programs were not quite successful. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you accept the ACLU's unproven allegations as the truth. On the other hand, if you accept the schools's position, it took sufficient steps to foster tolerance at school, and had no legal responsibility for this after school occurrence.  That doesn't mean intolerant acts did not occur, but that, by implementing programs such as "No Place For Hate," the school discharged whatever legal duty it may have had to ensure tolerance at school.  That aside, the reported fact is that the ACLU never proved its legal theory at trial, but settled the case without attributing any fault or wrongdoing to the school.  To say more would be speculating, conducting original research, or adopting the ACLU's POV68.4.61.51 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has, once again, made an unsupported claim ("No Place For Hate program Is entirely based on 'specific, verifiable steps' ") that is a blatant falsehood. The link he provided is totally lacking in "specific, verifiable steps". Given this pattern of posting false information. it is vitally important to double check all assertions made by the IP editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, your comments are calling your own credibility into serious doubt. Here is what the link says about "No Place for Hate":
 * "This anti-bigotry campaign sees our regional office partner with schools to combat bigotry and hate on campuses. Working with students and faculty members, ADL staff asks all students to sign a Pledge of Respect and commit to work toward a hate free school. Over the course of a school year, ADL staff partners with students and teachers to create anti-bigotry activities and multi-cultural learning opportunities that facilitate a greater understanding between all of the different groups on campus."68.4.61.51 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not Specific (What "anti-bigotry activities"? What "multi-cultural learning opportunities"?) and not verifiable (Where is the document from a reliable source confirming that the school completed anti-bigotry activity X on date Y?). Please stop posting things that are not true. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get more specific and verifiable than to require "all students to sign a Pledge of Respect and commit to work toward a hate free school." But editing this article does not require proof that the ADL's "No Place for Hate" program is sufficient to prevent bigotry, or that the program was properly followed by the school.  The ADL's anti-bias program has been recognized in numeous publications, and as such was referenced in the NYT article discussing the school's response to the allegation it fostered intolerance.  Again, we are talking about what the school said it did.  WP should not be taking a position as to what in fact occurred because that was never proven in court--by either side.  Accordingly, if you require no specific, verifiable proof the school was responsible for the Facebook video, you should have no problem with including my edit.  And that brings me full-circle to my original point--allegations in a lawsuit are not worthy of coverage an encyclopedia unless and until proven.  Allegations may appear in newspapers, such as "so-and-so accused of x",  but it is a failure of journalism if they take on the mantle of truth.  WP is not a tabloid and should not make the same mistake.68.4.61.51 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are persistent, no doubt, but you are not convincing the mass of editors here. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not possible when they vote by stacky blocks. Personally, I prefer quality to quantity.68.4.61.51 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To arrive at a consensus, we consider the quality of the arguments, not the quantity. Your arguments have holes in them. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't take the bait, but I will say that the only hole that matters is the big one in the article that guts the school's legal defense: "The school denied these allegations, stating ...that school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity."68.4.61.51 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By my count, six different editors have looked at your arguments and exactly zero of them agree with you. This consensus isn't what you implied with your snarky "they vote by stacky blocks" comment, either; at least two of the other editors have reverted me in the past (which of course I welcome - see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). So let's examine your options here, shall we? You tried edit warring and now you can't edit the page because you did that. You can't go much farther with the personal attacks without being blocked from editing any Wikipedia page. You have tried repeating the same arguments that didn't work last time and that didn't work. Telling fibs isn't working out for you. let my frustration show. apologies. You tried going to one of our noticeboards and they ended up calling you a liar and factually correct, but uncivil to bring it up. Sorry about that. telling you that you have no case. Looks like you are out of options. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I encourage any third party to read the record in full before believing a word of what you just said. You are out of line calling me a liar--this is a personal attack clearly violative of WP policy.  I assume from your lack of discipline that WP gives latitude to throw your weight around, despite the dullness and obstinacy of your argumentation, but I remain comfortable in the integrity and soundness of my position stated above.68.4.61.51 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

68's changes
I'm mostly happy with the changes that 68 made. I have no problem with the section shrinking a bit and with the info being put into proper chronological order. I did re-add the bit about the video, because as I said before, I am certain that the LAT considers the problems in the video to be fact, though the LAT is not certain if the school handled it appropriately. More importantly, leaving out that part misses what the LAT says is the main thing that lead to the suit. I added back in a half of a sentence to cover that; I think the treatment is still short enough to not trigger the problems 68 has. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The section is very much improved over the previous version. I just cleaned up the alumni section. The Athletics section need work; right now it is a wall of text combining notable (State Championships) with non-notable (added lacrosse to their sports program in 2007), and the most notable items do not lead. Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not add death threat language. It was an obvious prank, not genuine, or the police would have been involved.  Do not misrepresent this video.68.4.61.51 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors do not make the judgment of whether or not it was a prank. It doesn't really matter if it was.  A reliable source, the LA Times, reported that the video contained death threats.  Therefore, that is notable enough to be included. It would be misrepresentation to NOT include that language. 72Dino (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I concur w/72Dino (and to some extent Guy Macon below). 68, do you have some source that demonstrates that it was a prank or joke or otherwise not serious?  Depending on the source, we could either consider adding two interpretations, or possibly even changing what is there now.  Without a conflicting source, though, I don't see how we can know what is or isn't a joke.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have undone 68's latest change to that section, because it's simply not what the LAT says. 68, take this to a noticeboard or start an RfC. You are misreading the Times article.  I did re-add in the citation about the school denying the claims with the cite from the NYT (I had to re-do some of the grammar in the process).  However, when I did so, I noticed that we don't currently have a source in the article for the lawsuit being settled. I have to run but will look back through the talk page for a suitable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the time I got back and found a source, 68 had already added a different one, which is fine. I did re-remove the school's POV claims of being tolerant; I also added the terms of the settlement.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You added some terms of the settlement and I added the one that made it possible: no admission of wrongdoing. In that connection, if you intend to go into details about the settlement or other details in cited articles (which once again will bloat this section beyond all proportion to its importance to the school) you need to state the point of view of both sides to be balanced. You haven't been doing that.  Case in point: You are willing to give full coverage to the ACLU's POV claims the school fostered homophobia, but reverted the school's statement, quoted in the same article, that it has taken steps to foster tolerance and diversity.  I spared the detail that the Anti-Defamation League had designated it as a “No Place For Hate” school. Again, the ACLU never proved its case against the school, just made allegations.68.4.61.51 (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested protection
I have requested full protection of this article. When I requested it, the article was on my non-preferred version (the last one by 68), because I specifically didn't want to appear to be requesting protection of my version. I don't know what version the admin will pick since Guy Macon has edited in the meanwhile. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I request that Guy Macon's edits be reverted and would do so myself but for the pendency of your request. These edits reflect a lack of understanding of the difference between a POV that is reported in a published article (e.g., the school district's claim that CdM fostered tolerance, as confirmed by the ADL), and a POV that is reported in a press release and a complaint in a lawsuit (e.g., the ACLU's claim that CdM fostered intolerance).  That aside, it is obvious that the ACLU's POV is the basis of each and every article about the lawsuit's claim that the school fostered intolerance.  If the ACLU's POV is to be covered at all in an encyclopedia (which I dispute because it is a highly damaging opinion, not a proven fact), the published reponse should be given equal prominence. An article on a contested lawsuit that was resolved without admission of fault or wrongdoing will never be fair, neutral or balanced unless it fairly depicts the position of both sides.  Virtually every article cited in the Controversies section reflects the disappointing trend of modern journalism (possibly caused by budget cutbacks and a lack of critical thinking) to regurgitate press releases.  The ACLU would be the beneficiary here.  While I would not oppose your request to protect this section of the article as I last edited it, I do not agree to protecting the remainder of the article.  I would ask, however, that Guy Macon stop picking away at the Athletics section.  CdM's rival, Newport Harbor High, has a WP article that lists every sport offered, which takes up much of the WP article. CdM should have no less coverage, and certainly should not be frozen in time; it has an active program that no doubt will continue to earn championships.68.4.61.51 (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you are calmly discussing the changes you want without (so far) being uncivil. For that you should be commended. Not only is this a lot less annoying for the rest of us, it is far more likely to result in you getting your way than flaming and edit warring will. Right now three editors disagree with you. If you can convince one of them that your version is best, then you have a good shot at convincing more of them.


 * I will focus on what I believe to be the core of your argument: "If the ACLU's POV is to be covered at all in an encyclopedia (which I dispute because it is a highly damaging opinion, not a proven fact), the published reponse should be given equal prominence."


 * Wikipedia does not present what ACLU says as a fact. It presents as a fact that the ACLU made certain claims in a lawsuit. The only balancing statement needed is that the school admitted to no wrongdoing. Whether it is "highly damaging" is irrelevant. We as Wikipedia editors must not take things like that into consideration, but rather must fairly report what is in the sources from a neutral point of view.


 * If you can find a response that the School filed with the court, that would have a better chance of being accepted as a reliable source. We really would like to avoid anything coming from an ACLU or School press release (including any newspaper article that quotes a large chunk of the press release), but the school denying wrongdoing is important enough to justify including a short excerpt.


 * Again I must emphasize that for you to get what you want, you need to convince someone else here (as do I and everyone else). Editing the article so as to include changes that you know that the other editors disagree with will just result in your edit being reverted and with you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. So work on presenting a logical and compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI . . . The request for full protection of article was declined. 72Dino (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I hope we will be able to work out our disagreements here.68.4.61.51 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I removed the laundry list of sports at the Newport Harbor High School article. WP is not a directory and I removed it per WP:WPSCH/AG. 72Dino (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that the laundry list is against policy, but I cannot find your edit in the page history. I think you may have clicked save on an edit conflict notice. I have made that mistake before. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff. 72Dino (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. looked at the wrong page. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 68.4.61.51 is once again attempting to insert material that he knows is against consensus. Please keep an eye out for further disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * He just switched IPs from 68.4.61.51 to 174.254.81.53. Probably not intentional; the old IP is a Cox DLS line, the new IP is Verizon Wireless. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Admin Fastily just semi-protected the page. ("Protected Corona del Mar High School: Persistent vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed] expires 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)") --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Water Polo
I am having a bit of trouble verifying this claim:

"They have the most titles in Boy's Water polo, winning the title 13 times"

All the references seem to be derived from Wikipedia. I am also having trouble figuring out exactly what "title" means in this context. State champions? Regional? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to peruse the CIF record book68.4.61.51 (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Three times already I have checked citations you provided, only to find that they don't say what you claim they say. I am not going to waste any more time on you. Either post specific answers to the questions with page numbers that can be verified or go away and let us do our work. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding. The answer you seek is in the record book.  Read it.68.4.61.51 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on page 305-310.As far as I see, Long Beach Poly has 13, and Corona only has 12; El Segundo also has 12. Of course, that's me trying to hand count through almost a century of championships; if someone else wants to re-count, go ahead. I'd say, remove the claim unless someone else verifies it or has a direct quote. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And actually, that's only the "Southern Section"--it doesn't account for northern CA championships. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be incivil, but the eagerness to remove this and other notable athletic accomplishments strongly suggests a non-neutral POV. The CIF record book shows CdM has 13 CIF Southern Section Boy's Water Polo championships: 65,66,69,74,82,85,87,88,89,99,00,01,10. Long Beach Poly was the old Southern California League, not CIF.  Water Polo does not have a State Championship. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the page after the last round of edits, it looks pretty good. All the sections -- Academics, Athletics, Controversies, Notable alumni -- appear to be neutral, have the right amount of detail, and are well-referenced. Unless someone else has any suggestions (or the IP editor is able to get someone else to agree with his preferred version - consensus can change), I can't see anything more that needs to be done. Good job, everybody! (GROUP HUG) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the part where we all play Earth ball? ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Calvinball... --Guy Macon (talk)


 * No problem with hugging, but high fives are inappropriate. The Controversies section still favors the ACLU's offense over CdM's defense.  The number of CIF Southern Section Boy's Water Polo championships is mistated at 12--the number is 13 (see the CIF record book).  Water Polo is a world-class sport in Southern California and being a finalist is almost as significant as winning, but this accomplishment was deleted.  The boys and girls tennis teams regularly win CIF championships, but this was deleted or overlooked. The girl's volleyball team was no. 28 in the U.S. in 2011.  Powerade FAB 50 This was not mentioned, although there are more than 37,000 high schools in the U.S.


 * No, the article is not finished.68.4.61.51 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite my vow to never again let this IP editor waste my time with false claims, in a moment of weakness I checked the citation to see if the above "13, not 12" claim was correct. Again my time was wasted! Here are the years that Corona del Mar won:

Even that is dodgy; each of those records since 1969 were divisional wins. For example, in 2001, six schools can claim to be "Champions"

I will remain civil, but the I think reader can imagine what I would like to write about having my time wasted again. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, it is you who are wasting our time. CdM won the championship in 2010. (See the CIF record book, at p. 310.)  That makes 13 championships.  The number was correct from the beginnning.  Please read the sources in front of you before you make any further changes or personally attack other editors.  And please do everyone a favor--take a break from "editing".  You need it.  68.4.61.51 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The CIF record book changed how it numbers divisions, causing my automated search to miss 2010 and give me a total of 12 -- the same number Qwyrxian's manual count got --- but both counts were wrong. The count has now been corrected. I also corrected the much larger error of calling the 13 wins "state" championships when they were actually only southern California Division 2 titles. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Division 2 titles did not start until 1999. Read your own "automated search" results above.  You should have read the record yourself before you falsely accused another editor of "wast[ing your] time with false claims".  68.4.61.51 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You did waste my time with false claims two times before, but did not do so this time. Before they were division 2 they were division 4A, thus the article now says "southern section divisional title."  Interesting that you had no problem with the claim of "state championships." --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't stop shooting yourself in the foot, can you? I expressly stated above that the reference to state championships was in error: "Water Polo does not have a State Championship." Perhaps that was too subtle for you, but do try to read before you attack other editors. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are more interested in a flame war that you are in collaborating. I am now going to stop responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not interested in a "flame war," just a good article. I invite third parties to scroll up to the beginning of this Water Polo section.  As you can see, Guy Macon started this because he (apparently) couldn't find the CIF record book.  When I provided the link he refused to read it.  When he finally did look at it he misread it. Then he accused me of "false claims."  That says alot about Guy Macon and the rest of his "edits" in this article. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, both of you, back to your respective corners. Mistakes were made. Time to move on. Is the point in the article fixed? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't owe anyone an apology for good editing. There are a number of things still wrong with the article. Read my comments above. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All known factual errors and unsourced claims have been fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 68, if you want to make a change to that section, and you can verify it with a reliable source, feel free to do so. If someone thinks it's a problem, you'll be reverted, and we'll be back here to discuss the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that he can, because the article is semi-protected because of vandalism (the protecting admin's words, not mine). That's why I have been attempting to verify every claim made by 68 - so I can fix any errors he identifies. What remains are the multiple areas where he tried to get consensus and could not do so, such as calling the rape/death threats a "prank" or adding "school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity" to the statement about the lawsuit (rejected because it was prior to the lawsuit). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot about the semi protection. So, I see a few other things 68 wants to include: Do we have a reference on the first point? Is it just the same CIF record book? If so, inclusion may be possible. On the second one, let me look into the Powerade Fab 50 thing to see what it means. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The boys and girls tennis teams regularly win CIF championships, but this was deleted or overlooked.
 * The girl's volleyball team was no. 28 in the U.S. in 2011. Powerade FAB 50 This was not mentioned, although there are more than 37,000 high schools in the U.S.


 * I have no objection to including a reasonable amount of additional material about sports as long as the section does not become too large. What the section really needs is to have the most impressive/notable accomplishments listed first, followed in order by less and less notable records.


 * The ESPN Powerade Fab 50 appears to be part of ESPNs rather extensive coverage of high school sports, but I was unable to find any information as to how the teams are chosen or how big the pool is. Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, I won't call you a liar, but at the very least you have a poor memory. You claim above, "the article is semi-protected because of vandalism (the protecting admin's words, not mine)."  In truth, it was your words--false ones--that caused Amin Fastly to semi-protect this article.  In that connection, Qwryxian had to correct you for misusing the term "vandalism" against me:


 * 'Vandalism--what it isn't
 * "Guy Macon, I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before, but please be careful about using the word "vandalism" to describe the edits of other users. None of the IP's edits at Corona del Mar High School constitute vandalism. The relevant policy is WP:VANDAL, and of particular value here is the section on what is not vandalism. Note, for example, that neither disruptive editing nor POV-pushing are considered vandalism. Since using that word inappropriately can be considered a personal attack, you have to take care only to use it in its very limited meaning. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)"


 * That aside, your comment that adding "school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity" was rejected because it was prior to the lawsuit displays a profound ignorance of what is legally relevant. In order to defend against an allegation that the school fostered intolerance, and thus became legally responsible for the Facebook video, the school would need to show it took preventative action.  That, by definition, is action that occurred prior to the lawsuit. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, I am still choosing to not respond, but one claim in the above can be verified by reading the edit comment from the protecting admin:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corona_del_Mar_High_School&action=historysubmit&diff=466754283&oldid=466753522


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine that halfway through January 2 the article will need to have its protection extended. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No need for imagination, your bias is showing.  As currently written this article smears one of the best high schools in the U.S. No one has yet responded on the merits to the criticism I raised--deleting the words, "school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity" results in biased and incompetent coverage of the legal subject matter of the ACLU lawsuit.  The lawsuit was about "fostering homophobia".  The steps the school took with the ADL to set up the "No Place for Hate" program discharged any duty CdM may have had prior to the Facebook incident to prevent it.  That aside, the sheer size of the Controversies section, which is almost as long as the Academics and Athletics sections combined, reflects bias. This is not an article about the ACLU, "cyber bullying," or gay rights, it is about a high school.  68.4.61.51 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Has anyone -- anyone at all -- been convinced by your arguments? No? Does the above contain any new arguments, or are you recycling arguments that didn't work the last three times? Nope, nothing new here. Same old personal attacks and accusations of bias that didn't work last time. So let's explore your other options. Can you simply edit the article without getting anyone to agree first? As you have discovered, doing that will simply result in you not being able to edit. Could you calm down, stop picking fights and have a calm and rational discussion that might end up with someone else being convinced?  Well, that is the path that has the greatest probability of you getting your way, but if past experience is any guide, you will once again reject that solution out of hand as you have so many times before and instead engage in further personal attacks, accomplishing nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, I made two points: (i) that the article fails to portray the legal case accurately by omitting mention of the main legal defense, which was published in the NYT, and (ii) that the excessive length of the Controversies section relative to the rest of the article smears the school--it creates the false impression the school is controversial and that the main event in its 50-year history was an ACLU lawsuit. If you have a response on the merits, I'd be interested in reading it. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard you the first dozen times. Repeating it again and again does not seem to be swaying anybody towards agreeing with you. I also don't think repeating the reasons why your arguments were rejected would be helpful; you (and nobody else) rejected the arguments last time and will do so again.


 * If you want to work collaboratively, a good start would be helping to put the list of sports records in order of importance and notability. Just post a list here on the talk page saying that you think X is the most impressive and should be listed first, Y is second most impressive, and so forth. You could even expand the list a bit while you are at it; I wouldn't mind if the list was double the size that it is now. How about doing that, just to show everyone that you are willing to work with others? As I said before, convincing other editors is the only way you can get what you want. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Generous of you to allow Athletics to be expanded "a bit." Please tell us where I can find the discussion in which you achieved a consensus to make that statement?  If you followed your own advice I might be inclined to do likewise, but you have never sought my agreement for any change you have made to this article.  There is a word for that sort of conduct but I will not use it here.  The cure is not expanding Athletics, although that should be done.  And the reader will note, starting with your nonsensical question at the beginning of this Water Polo section, that you have persistently tried to shrink it. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to the personal attacks and refusing to work collaboratively, I see. If you ever change your mind and stop climbing the Reichstag, feel free to post your take on which sports records are more and less important / notable.


 * Just to correct your deep misunderstanding about what consensus is, Statement such as "I wouldn't mind if..." or "I think that..." do not require prior consensus. Such statements are a necessarily part of reaching consensus. If nobody objects, (as was the case when I wrote "I wouldn't mind if Athletics was double the size that it is now" then the consensus is that doubling the size of the athletics section is acceptable. If a bunch of editors object or revert (as was the case when you first proposed adding "school officials had taken steps to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity") then the consensus is against making that change.


 * I will now return to not responding. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, could everyone please just stop? 68, if you still want to pursue changes to the legal section, please see our dispute resolution process. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversies
Sources linked in Corona del Mar High School's "Controversies" section offer credible documentation of a nationally publicized lawsuit. Likewise, the visuality.org page cited therein offers numerous additional credible sources (bottom of page) and has archived the video that began this precedent-setting lawsuit. According to IP address registry, an editor at Corona del Mar High/Middle school continues to delete this content. While it is understandable that the school would prefer to elide this history, this case was one of the first to focus national attention on the problem of LGBT student bullying in our schools. This section makes an important and well-sourced contribution to the article on Corona del Mar High School and middle School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonHird (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted the visuality.org website at the reliable source noticeboard to get feedback if this is an appropriate source. 72Dino (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Two other editors, User:ElKevbo (who removed the content) and User:First Light who commented at WP:RSN have indicated the visuality.org website is not a reliable source. Further reading of the blog entry also makes me question its neutrality.  Normally I would think something published like this by the Columbia Law School would be appropriate.  However, at the bottom of the article it identifies the author as "a board member and chair of the legal team of the Orange County Equality Coalition, which was a named plaintiff in the Orange County lawsuit."  This may not be a good source and I believe a better one should be found or remove the content. 72Dino (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. DaltonHird (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote about inner city schools is not factually supported by the article cited. The article mentions a couple of isolated incidents and does not relate them to inner city schools or to general conditions at CdM. The AClU lawsuit was dismissed and never proven in a court of law. The press release by the ACLU is self-serving, and assumes facts never proven. The second paragraph is misleading in that it suggests there were two lawsuits. There was only one and it is not significant enough to merit more words of coverage in this article than the entire 50 year history of the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.51 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I agree with the IP editor that the comparison to inner city schools, while cited, should be removed because it reflects only one year of the school's history and can be misleading. And thank you for discussing it here. You will want to get a consensus, though, before deleting the content. 72Dino (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are we using an editorial in the Daily Pilot as a source? Quote from the editorial: "I have another idea: Call the police and have them all arrested or cited." That's opinion piece language, not news article language. WP:RS says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This case garnered national attention and is now a model for similar court cases across the country. Though it was settled out of court, this does not mean the school was exonerated; in fact, the school agreed to write an apology to the young woman who was threatened, and to implement mandatory training regarding sexism and homophobia for all faculty, administrators and students as part of the settlement, among other measures. These facts alone, however, are not why this case merits a significant amount of weight in the article about Corona del Mar High School. This case is precedent setting, and continues to be discussed in legal texts and textbooks. Most recently, the case was cited in Judge Thomas A. Jacobs'book entitled, Teen Cyberbullying Investigated: Where Do Your Rights End and Consequences Begin?, (Free Spirit Publishing, 2010. pg 168). The case continues to garner interest nationally among legal scholars because it was the first case to jointly address homophobia and sexism as interrelated social forces. This understanding, applied to cases where First Amendment rights rub up against education codes--such as Title IX--and hate crime laws, is invaluable if we are to curb the epidemic of schoolyard and cyber bullying. Because of its significance nationally as both a case about the influence of the arts (cancellation of the play RENT) and a case about the role of homophobia and sexism in bullying, this case was also discussed in the New York Times in at least three different articles over a six-month period; this is extremely rare. The play’s cancellation was a separate incident that happened that same year—though it was ultimately also cited as evidence, and given standing in the lawsuit, when a local organization representing the LGBT community became a signatory to the suit, OCEC, or, the Orange County Equality Coalition. I believe that the Daily Pilot article is an important contribution to the article on Corona del Mar High School because it discusses how the school’s various nationally-covered controversies have come to eclipse some of the positive standing the school may have had in the local community and in the national educational community. The flip side of this is, of course, that the events that unfolded at the school in 2009 ultimately contributed to establishing a legal precedent that helps the court to more fully and expediently protect young women and LGBT students from harassment and bullying; it was, one could argue, in the end perhaps the school's most positive contribution. DaltonHird (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If all of that is true, Guy Macon is very correct that we shouldn't be using an editorial. As a general rule, editorials can't be used to support factual claims, and if there are good reliable sources other than the Pilot article, we should use those.  This is just how sourcing works on WP.  Guy Macon, which of the Daily Pilot stories is the editorial? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Daily Pilot story that appears to be an editorial is Smith, Steve (June 22, 2009). "Kids These Days: Drama expands at CdM". Daily Pilot. Retrieved October 24, 2011. It contains the following language which I believe is more editorial that news reporting: "Yes, you read it correctly. District officials said the students “could” be suspended or expelled. So, exactly how does one suspend or expel any graduating seniors involved? I have another idea: Call the police and have them all arrested or cited." and was written by a freelance writer, not a staff reporter. We really need a better source than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if there is another source out there (other than the Daily Pilot article) that does a more thorough macro-analysis of the reach and consequence of these controversies at Corona del Mar High but will look into it. DaltonHird (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The ACLU case did not, and never could have, "contributed to establishing a legal precedent that helps the court to more fully and expediently protect young women and LGBT students from harassment and bullying". This is a blatant misrepresentation--the law FORBIDS using a settlement as a legal precedent in other cases.  Legal precedents can only be established by trying a lawsuit in a court of law, obtaining affirmance from a court of appeal, and getting a written appellate opinion officially published in legal casebooks.  None of that occurred here.  To the contrary, the ACLU dropped the case because they would have lost at trial.  Rather than being a legal precedent, this was nothing more than a Gloria Allred-style publicity stunt.  No court of law would accept the outcome of this ACLU lawsuit against CdM as a legal precedent for any purpose.  A settlement is not a judgment, no matter what the ACLU and its cronies say about it.68.4.61.51 (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is IP speaking:

First, let me say it appears our Administrator, Qwyrxian, is participating in the debate as a partisan and should not be suggesting "we should use" certain sources to support claims that have never been proven, claims I been silenced in opposing. This reflects the most biased, nonobjective administration I have ever seen in a supposedly objective publication. Absent a vote on what the consensus is, why does our Administrator allow DaltonHird and 72Dino to delete my edits, and me not to delete theirs? Does our Administrator represent "consensus" as does "Dear Leader" in North Korea? Recuse yourself, Qwyrxian, before the objectivity of this publication is further discredited.

Second, DaltonHird and 72Dino should disclose their connection to the "controversy" section they are carefully, almost obsessively, monitoring. Were they involved in the ACLU case and trying to rewrite history of a failed lawsuit?

Third, Guy Macon makes a valid point: The Daily Pilot article quoted in the first sentence of the "Controversies" section is biased and unsupported. It is NOT based on demonstrated facts. Indeed the 50 year history of the school is to the contrary. This should have been deleted from the outset had our Administrator not been biased in favor of the agenda advanced by DaltonHird and 72Dino. It should be deleted without further delay; it is continuing to defame a fine educational institution.

Specifically, the first paragraph quotes a writer for a minor local newspaper, the Daily Pilot, alleging CdM has "problems reserved for inner city schools". This is not neutral, nor is it the article quoted in a neutral manner. No effort is made to explain this statement, to place it in context, to state the facts upon which it is based, or to balance it with other comments. It is given excessive weight--reading the cited article reveals it refers to relatively minor events occuring by happenstance around the same time in 2009, that are given almost as many words as the remaining parts of the article. Use of this defamatory quote to lead off the "Controversies" section violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines as it does not define "problems reserved for inner city schools" and does not offer any factual explanation why CdM has such "problems." The incidents described in the cited article, even if taken true, do not show that CdM, as a school, itself is now or ever has been "troubled", or has "problems reserved for inner city schools" whatever those problems may be. It should be deleted before this publication does further damage to the reputation of the school.

Fourth, the impetus for the "Controveries" section is a legal case brought by the ACLU over the play, "Rent" in 2009. The case was settled WITHOUT ADMISSION OF FAULT. Wikipedia's guidelines expressly prohibit stating contested allegations as facts, and stating opinions as facts, but that is exactly what the "Controversies" section does. This is highlighted by the non-objective sources cited by the authors of the Controversies section that merely regurgitate the unproven allegations of the lawsuit.

The sentence, "In 2009, the school was accused of harboring a culture of homophobia and sexism documented, among other places, in a Facebook video as threats of both murder and rape by male athletes toward a female CdM student. [1]" The source of this statement is not reliable. In fact, it is admittedly a mere accusation, not a proven event. The reference to a video that allegedly "includes homophobic slurs and threats of violence directed at gay students" violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. The video and the website supplying it is from a detractor of CdM whose claim against the school in relation to the video was unsuccessful. It also unfairly associates the video with CdM. That no claim was successfully made against CdM as a result of the video shows the biased reportage of the editor who wrote this reference. The sentence, "In August 2009 Corona del Mar High settled a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of women students and LGBT students at the school.[5]" violates the NPOV policy because it does not explain that the lawsuit was vigorously contested and never proven in court. It also violates the No original research policy because it footnotes to a press release by the ACLU. Press releases are inherently biased and do not themselves constitute news. The sentences, "The school again came to national attention in 2009 after then Principal Fal Asrani canceled the student production of Rent.[6] The ACLU lawsuit and its signatories also cited this cancellation as further evidence that homophobic bullying and sexist harassment was tolerated at the school.[7] The production was reinstated after the lawsuit was made public." violate the NPOV policy because it is the same lawsuit as is referenced in the preceding paragraph, made to look like another lawsuit. It also violates the policy of No original research as it footnotes to a blog written by a detractor of CdM, not a news source. The sentence, "The opening night was marked by a demonstration by the Westboro Baptist Church.[8]" violates NPOV policy because it does not explain the "demonstration" was insignificant. The sentence clearly biased as it represents an effort to associate the Westboro Baptist Church with CdM. There is no such association.

In sum, the Controversies section is pure opinion and derogatory characterization (albeit repeated in mainstream media publications) based upon unproven allegations, to wit: (ii) that the video is somehow a CdM-sanctioned production upon which derogatory statements about the school may be justified (at most it was a prank done without knowledge or consent of the school's administration, as evidenced by the fact that no administrative or legal action was taken), (iii) mentioning the ACLU lawsuit violates Wikipedia's own guidelines as it is nothing but unproven allegations. Absent proof of the underlying facts there should be no entry in Wikipedia stating or suggesting that the allegations actually occurred. IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)  — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let me add one, final, and most significant point: In America you can allege anything in a lawsuit. That does not make the allegations true. In order to be true, they must be proven. There is NO PROOF of the ACLU allegations. It is a Gloria Allred-type publicity stunt by an organization with a social agenda that deliberately chose NOT TO PROVE ITS CASE IN COURT. It is a pity many uneducated persons in this country don't know the difference between a fact and an allegation. If Wikipedia is to have any scholarly credibility it should not make the same mistake. IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)  — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As it appears the other editors are involved in the ACLU/Rent/Facebook matter and are unwilling to remove the distortions, unproven allegations, and smears in the Controversies section, the neutrality of this article is in dispute.


 * Just because you assert it is in dispute does not make it so. Please take your concerns to the NPOV noticeboard and see what uninvolved editors think.  Please notify us here when you do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, perhaps you have forgotten the last TWO MONTHS of disputes on neutrality of the Controversies section of this article. Please re-read the above discussion, the history of editing this article, and my own comment page. The existence of a dispute is patently obvious from the different positions taken by the editors above.  For example, see the comment of 72Dino, who in one instance even agrees with me: "I agree with the IP editor that the comparison to inner city schools, while cited, should be removed because it reflects only one year of the school's history and can be misleading."  Yet this sentence STILL REMAINS in the article.  Qwyrxian, you could make yourself useful by deleting this sentence, as I believe a consensus has been reached, assuming consensus is needed to eliminate defamatory remarks (a punctilious and offensive requirement).  If you're not willing to remove it, please leave this discussion.  You are not contributing to our efforts to turn this into a fair and unbiased article. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I've moved the quotation into the following paragraph where it has context, and clarified that it specifically refers to the problems surrounding the production of Rent. However, if there is still a consensus saying it should be removed, that's fine by me. Maybe a rough vote (yes, I know, we're not a democracy, however, we can use straw polls as a quick way to see if there is a clear consensus) might clarify whether or not this revision is sufficient.
 * As for your more general point, the fact that you specifically have argued for months that there is an NPOV problem does not itself prove that there is. Otherwise any editor could go to any article and just complain complain complain for months and then afterward insist that that complaining itself proved a dispute.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, please read the cited articles and the comments on them before you edit. The opinion you were quoting was not that of the Daily Pilot newspaper, it was the opinion of STEVE SMITH, a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer.  Elevating his opinion to that of an entire newspaper is a misrepresentation in the extreme.  Please respect the editorial views of Guy Macon, 72 Dino (on this point) and myself, and get rid of the defamatory comment entirely.  Don't add to the problem by moving it to where it does not belong.  Special:Contributions/68.4.61.51|68.4.61.51]] (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On the ACLU case and LA Times coverage
Now that Qwxyrian has changed the article, he has brought another offending sentence to the forefront:

"The suit accused the school of "fostering a 'sexist' and 'homophobic' atmosphere" documented in a Facebook video where three Corona del Mar football players threatened to rape and kill a female classmate and used homophobic slurs.[5]"

How does one begin to parse the many slanders and smears against CdM contained in this quote?

Starting the beginning, the sentence admits it is about a "suit". That is key--it is not about a judgment. There is a vast difference between proven and unproven allegations in a lawsuit. First and foremost, allegations are inherently biased. An allegation is one party's point of view, not that of the other party. An accusation, as part of a suit that has not been to court, is unproven and inherently biased. Accordingly, unproven allegations are not worthy of encyclopedic reference. This is particularly true in America, where anyone can allege anything in a lawsuit without consequence.

This alone is sufficient reason to delete the sentence as violating WP's NPOV policy.

The next words allegely summarize what the suit "accused" CdM of doing: "fostering" a "sexist" and "homophobic" "atmosphere". The sentence claims this was "documented" in a Facebook video.

If you violate WP policy against original research and watch the video you'll see it's nothing more than three drunken teenage males joking with a friend. It is NOT a genuine death threat. If there had been a genuine threat, expecially one for which CdM was responsible, criminal charges would have been brought. There were none.

To elevate it to that level, and then attribute the conduct to the school itself, is a shameful misrepresentation. This calls into serious question the motives of anyone who would do so. I still am waiting to hear from DaltonHird what his/her connection is to the ACLU lawsuit. CdM did not "foster" death threats. Including a sentence in a WP article to that effect is a despicable slur against this nationally-respected academic institution. The sentence should be deleted. [Special:Contributions/68.4.61.51|68.4.61.51]] (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * NPOV doesn't work the way you want it to, despite many people telling you this. If this were an article about a living person, and thus covered by BLP, you may have a case.  But NPOV does not say that we cannot include negative claims (even unproven ones), as long as the source is reliable and the claim is WP:DUE.  I believe both points are met here; if you disagree, please make a post on WP:NPOVN; if consensus there should disagree with me, I am happy to remove the claim. As for watching the video and drawing conclusions, that would be original research, forbidden by WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, your comment above (and please don't take personal offense) is completely and utterly fallacious--a schoolboy howler. You assume your own conclusion--that "the source is reliable and the claim is"--without any evidence of reliability of either the source or the claim.  More importantly, Qwyrxian, you overlooked a central issue:  You admit, "If this were an article about a living person, and thus covered by BLP, you may have a case."  Yet you fail to recall that the Facebook video contains images of real, living kids, persons whose reputations are still at stake.  Characterizing their video prank as a murder threat is utterly shameful, almost as despicable as if the "threat" had been real.  68.4.61.51 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I've removed 4 of the parameters you took in your shotgun approach to tagging the article. You have no evidence of a COI.  The article doesn't need cleanup (that's for basic grammar and formatting). POV and disputed are redundant, and the multiple issues template says we shouldn't duplicate parameters. And the NOT and lists thing was I assume directed at the alumni list; however, alumni lists are always allowed in school articles if they are verified by reliable sources (and the verification can be at the target article if there is one).  Feel free to remove any names on the list that don't have a ref verifying the person went to the school.


 * Regarding your point above, I've run out of ways to explain to you that you don't understand policy. WP:BLP doesn't apply because the students aren't named in either our article or in the source, so no one is being harmed or defamed.  Neither our article nor the LA Times provides the name of or a link to the Facebook video.  Thus no one is being harmed by this claim, which is a claim of fact (that a lawsuit was filed against the school).  If you still think I'm wrong, go to WP:BLPN. This information is well sourced, it is relevant to the history of the school, and is not in contravention to WP:BLP.  While I am not removing the rest of your tags, I will eventually do so unless you can find a policy-based reason to keep them--and that will need more than your assertions; as always, I recommend a noticeboard or an RfC.


 * Also, as a minor minor point, I have never once stated or implied that the claim itself (that the school was creating a hostile environment) was true. All I am claiming is that the fact that the claim was made is true and verified and meets all of our other content policies and is currently consensus for being included.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I'm hoping that a light will go on for you if I say it a different way. The offending sentence we are discussing states,


 * "The suit accused the school of "fostering a 'sexist' and 'homophobic' atmosphere" documented in a Facebook video where three Corona del Mar football players threatened to rape and kill a female classmate and used homophobic slurs."

Read the last half of the sentence: "... documented in a Facebook video where three Corona del Mar football players threatened to rape and kill a female classmate and used homophobic slurs." From this it appears WP has concluded the allegations were "documented in a Facebook video", i.e., proven to be true, which implies the truth of the remainder of the sentence, that "Corona del Mar football players threatened to rape and kill a female classmate and used homophobic slurs."

That statement is utterly false. The Facebook video did not "document" a threat of rape and murder. Yet that is exactly what this sentence leads the reader to conclude.

On a procedural issue, I am puzzled why you are attempting to shift this debate over to an NPOV board. Would that be a friendlier forum for you? THIS is the Talk Page for this article.

Meanwhile, please keep your hands off my tags. You have already admitted you are a partisan in this discussion and have no more right to remove tags than you did to block my edits. Recuse yourself. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Like any other editor, I can make changes to tags that do not apply to the article; you don't own them any more than I do. Tags which do not apply to an article should be removed on sight by any editor. Why do I have to "recuse myself"? I am no longer acting as an admin on this page or with respect to you in any way, shape or form; removing the tags is me acting as an editor. I will, however, continue to work to ensure that the article is accurate, that it is tagged properly, and that all editors behave appropriately (which may include me seeking for you to be sanctioned if you are disruptive).


 * On the sentence, Wikipedia hasn't made the conclusion--the LA Times did. The LA Times article states, "While the complaint cites the show's brief cancellation as one example, much of it focuses on the aftermath of a Facebook video posted in January in which three Corona del Mar football players threatened to rape and kill a female classmate and used slurs to describe homosexuals." Per the LA times, the lawsuit alleges misconduct by the school (for not properly dealing with the video); but it treats the threats and slurs as facts. However, after I copy and paste this here, I note that the sentence in WP is too close to the original LAT wording, so I'm going to reword it to not be an overly close paraphrase. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you are mistaken. Read the LA Times article again. It does not treat the "threats" and "slurs" as facts, but as allegations. The writer was discussing what "the complaint cites". The author wrote, "[M]uch of it [the complaint] focuses on ... a Facebook video..." The LA Times took no position on whether the threats were genuine, or pranks, or even existed at all. The author did not even see the video. "The video has since been removed."

And stop threatening me with getting me "sanctioned" if I am "disruptive." It is unprofessional and inappropriate.68.4.61.51 (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You're misreading the source. The suit's allegation is about what the school did afterwards, but the LA Times considers the threats and slurs to be facts. The rest of the article treats the facts similarly--it talks about suspensions for the video, changing of classes, thoughts about restraining orders, etc., etc. I don't know what else to tell you, because while the lawsuit and the LA Times are only alleging poor conduct on the part of the school, the LA Times says that the actual video shows poor student behavior.  Note that just to be sure, I re-read the entire article, twice, focusing on this specific sentence and putting it in context.  To me, the reading I propose above is very clear. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect, Qwyrxian. The LA Times took NO POSITION on the truth of the ACLU's allegations. To the contrary, it dutifully reported CdM's position that the lawsuit contained "numerous factual errors and mistakes." WP, as an encyclopedia, should do no less.

The chronology of the Controversies section is fatally flawed. The first and second paragraphs are drafted so as to appear that the Rent controversy arose after the ACLU lawsuit: "The school AGAIN came to national attention in 2009 after then Principal Fal Asrani canceled the student production of Rent." (Emphasis added.) In fact the Rent and Facebook allegations were included in the ACLU lawsuit and reported in the LA Times article. This misrepresentation in the Controversies section overeemphasizes the significance of these minor events, as does the detail in which they are reported.

This is not an article about an ACLU lawsuit. It is an article about a California Distinguished High School. Unfortunately, it appears the article has been hijacked by supporters of the ACLU and gay rights. The article must be changed to put appropriate emphasis on its intended subject. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

One more thing, Qwyrxian. Now that you are a mere editor like me, and no longer our self-appointed administrator, please do not make any more changes in this article without getting consensus. And that includes input from me. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I don't know what to tell you on the LA Times article. I am certain that you are misreading it.  I agree with you that they take no position on the accusations of the ACLU. I disagree with you on what those accusations are.  I believe the article basically says "everyone agrees bad shit happened in a Facebook video posted by some Corona del Mar students; not everyone agrees about whether that video was handled properly by the school; the ACLU specifically alleges in a lawsuit that the schools handling of the issue created a hostile/sexist/discriminatory environment."  All I can suggest to you is that you raise the issue via dispute resolution; I've already suggested all of the different portions of DR that I think will apply here.
 * Stop claiming that I or others are editing because of our perceived political leanings. I edit Wikipedia to make it conform to sources and our policy. As the maxim goes, discuss the edits, not the editors. Note that this is not an article about a California Distinguished School.  It is an article about Corona del Mar High School, which must inevitably include both good and bad information about the school (properly sourced, etc.).
 * Consensus doesn't work the way you describe (or, at least, your approach isn't mandatory). If I make a change that you think is wrong, and you have a specific reason, revert it, then come explain on the talk page (you may want to create new sections occasionally for easy of editing the talk page).  I'll do the same for you (like how you made a change adding some templates, and I reverted you in part, then explained here).  Wikipedia does not require that editors get consensus first, only that they don't edit war over changes.  Don't, however, revert just out of principle.  Sometimes it can be easier to discuss first, but there's also a principle employed by many editors called WP:BRD, which recommends boldly editing first as a proposal, followed by reverts by others, followed by discussion.
 * Finally, though, a point I think we can agree on (yeah!): the chronology does seem to be wrong. I'm guessing that occurred as a result of editors adding the separate parts out of order. As far as I can see and recall (without re-reading all of the references again at the moment), the order should be:
 * Rent production announced
 * Rent canceled
 * Rent reinstated
 * Westboro Baptist and counter-protests
 * Facebook video
 * ACLU lawsuit covering above events
 * Some summary comments (like the one made by the Daily Pilot
 * Does that seem like the correct order? It seems like a relatively easy change, but before I or someone else makes it, I want to make sure we've got the chronology right. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, you've lost perspective. This is an article about a high school, not an ACLU lawsuit.  Are you going to go through each legal allegation next? The incidents to which you refer occurred during a very brief period of CdM's 50 year history and had no lasting impact (except, perhaps, to DaltonHird and other editors who apparently were involved.  In that connection, their involvement, for COI purposes, is shown by their intimate knowledge of ACLU press releases, the Facebook video, personal blogs and writings by the legal team.)


 * As I said, this article has been hijacked by the ACLU and gay rights activists. As such the entire short article is tainted, not just the Controversies section.  I'm going to revert the change that relegated my tags to this section only.68.4.61.51 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I offered you an olive branch--I found a topic we seemed to agree on, and you just blew it away without even addressing the issue, made fanciful allegations of conflict of interest with zero proof, and fail to recognize that you're the one who's POV pushing. I'm done with you. Much has been said lately that we don't do enough to stop POV pushing at the very beginning, that we let people who are nominally civil get away with extended attempts to push a narrow interpretation of what an article should say.  At this point, it's up to you to get consensus, go through DR, whatever.  Attack editors again (claiming editors edit in a certain way due to political convictions when you have no evidence whatsoever for those allegations) and I'll find a place to report you.  My position now is the same as it always has been: this event is an important part of what makes the school notable.  Is it perfect? No, probably not.  Should it be completely removed? No, absolutely not.


 * At the moment, your immediate concern is the templates: find some sort of evidence that any editors other than you think the templates may apply over a reasonable period of time (maybe a week or so), or I'll remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not support the inclusion of the templates for the section and definitely not for the article overall. When I started editing this article in April 2008, the Athletics section was shorter and there wasn't even an Academics section (and the alumni section was a mess), so I don't see at all how these sections were shortened.  That's why I moved the tags to just the disputed section.  And if the single purpose account IP editor is lumping me in with others he is accusing of having a conflict of interest and thinks I actually support the ACLU's positions, the editor is very wrong and I consider that a personal attack.  My "intimate knowledge" of these press releases, etc. comes just from clicking on the references and reading them.  I think there have been enough policy violations to block the IP editor again to prevent these rants against other editors. 72Dino (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That I mention COI (which you will note I did not re-tag after it was removed) is no reason others to fly off handle and threaten me again.
 * I am willing to take 72Dino at his/her word but I have not heard from DaltonHird. I have listed circumstantial evidence of a COI--intimate knowledge of ACLU press releases, access to a Facebook video which is no longer available, personal blogs and writings by the legal team. WP editors reading newspapers do not have this information. Persistently re-inserting this original research into this article, together with opinion and editorial pieces disparaging the school, strongly indicates an agenda, not a desire to write a fair and balanced discussion about the school.


 * Why the tags should remain: The Controversies section, which is based on one failed lawsuit, has grown like a cancer to be almost as large as the rest of the article combined.  Apart from the specifics, this has created a serious problem of balance; it looks like the high school is highly controversial and has serious problems.  That is false, misleading and disparaging. 68.4.61.51 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — User:68.4.61.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Your posting of "circumstantial evidence of a COI" does not belong here. It has nothing to do with improving the article. (Any perceived NPOV problems should be addressed the same way no matter who wrote them) The proper place to address this is WP:COIN.I am going to ask you to voluntarily delete that section of your comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The entire controversies section should be removed. I've looked at wikipedia pages from high schools that have had gang shootings, race riots and worse with nary a mention of any of it. In a high school that over 50 years old to focus on this one minor incident seems rather bizarre, especially since the play Rent was eventually put on. And a lawsuit that never happened over a Facebook posting? Really? Is that the standard for Wikipedia articles now?Scottca075 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no cookie-cutter approach to high school articles on Wikipedia. Some standardization gives a framework, then from there the various articles go their own way. It is not a valid argument to point to other high school articles and say that they do not have controversy sections. It is likely that those other schools very well could have controversy sections written for them, but nobody has stepped up to do it. Regarding CDMHS, the controversy is well-cited and written well enough to include, so we include it. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)