Talk:John Burroughs School

Untitled
I do believe that the date for William S. Burroughs attendance is off by a few decades. He was born, according to Wikipedia, in 1914. I doubt that he was... what... 45 when he graduated highschool.


 * yeah, if that is supposed to be the year he graduated, it is definitely wrong. he did not graduate from JBS at all. 1959 was, if memory serves, the year that Naked Lunch was first published. i removed it. 69.181.121.40 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

yo john when are you returning from skiing in colorado

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper ref tag?
You removed the improper reference to self-published sources tag from the John Burroughs School page, but did not add any additional sources. As it stands, the only reference on that WP page is to a fact page on the school site, which can only be described as a self-published reference. Are you planning on adding any additional citations, or did you deem the additional citations needed tag that was also in place sufficient? I believe that having both tags in place is proper, as the page needs both additional sources and improperly references self-published materials, and so I put the tag back in place. Thanks! Roscoestl (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that the article needs more sources. Disagree that saying, "Here's some info provided by the organization's own website," then properly citing that website, is an improper ref. The intelligent use of Wikipedia requires every user to evaluate cited sources; one may take any citation, including organizations' own websites, with a grain of salt, depending on one's judgement. Therefore, removed one tag, left other. Moreover, I added "according to the school's website" to make the source clear, even to a quick reader. PRRfan (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of the many articles that I watch, have knowledge of, and would like to expand, but need to find the time. I guess the main reason I added the ref tag was because that was the only citation on here. Agreed after more thought on the subject that the additional sources tag is sufficient.Roscoestl (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

John Burroughs has long had a school philosophy of liberal and progressive education. It has been recognized as St. Louis's most prestigious private school [1] and one of the nation's premier preparatory schools. [2] According to a recent survey in the Wall Street Journal, the school ranks among the top 50 schools nationally as measured by the best record of graduates attending eight top universities. [3]

I don't see how these three citations (which are all of the same source) prove that John Burroughs is considered the most prestigious private school in St. Louis. "”Prestigious" is not synonymous with having 11 of its students attended eight of the most prestigious schools in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.78.212 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Prom kerfuffle
I still don't see any cites that indicate this got national attention. The cite currently points to one Post-Dispatch columnist. Also, a dozen comments on a public bulletin board are neither particularly notable, nor a reliable indication of much reaction in the local community, so I have removed the Tree of Liberty cite. That leaves no indication that the controversy drew much notice outside the Catholic community. PRRfan (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Will look to see if there is some more reliable indication that non-Catholics were involved.Druid13515:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * proteacher.net is national. prophecyfellowship.org is Protestant.  Not sure if I got the footnote formatting right,but there are certainly other protestant and other national Catholic sites, such as Catholicanswers.com that noticed this.  Seems like adding them all as footnotes would be overkill.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.190.155 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some comments on one bulletin board do not "national attention" make. The phrase connotes a much bigger deal, as if, for example, several news networks or major newspapers ran stories about it, bringing it to the attention of millions of people. I'm not saying major news coverage is the only qualifier for "national attention," but it's got to be a higher bar than a posting on a smallish bulletin board that draws a few dozen comments from readers who happen to live in various states. PRRfan (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of the reason for this section about the prom controversy of 2009. What is the purpose of including this section; the article is about a school that was founded in 1923, so a whole section about this topic seems like giving it undue weight. I can see how this section served a purpose a year ago, when someone may have wondered, "What's all this I've heard about some prom controversy?" But at this point, hasn't some statute of limitations been met?Pcbd (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I am disappointed to see that my edits have been reversed. To the specific points:
 * Sorry I didn't catch this earlier. Simply put, if the school itself is notable, then the is certainly notable as well, since this was certainly a notable event in the school's history.  To my knowledge, there is no 'statute of limitations' for Wikipedia article sections.  It generated more news/local reactions than any other event in the school's recent history (including two radio shows not footnoted here), and caused a great deal of concern locally as evidenced by the many footnotes.  Likewise, it reveals a great deal about the character of the school, which encourages free thought, subtlety of thinking, and religious objectivity, as well as a healthy sense of humor.  As the invitation was published, it is itself a news item and therefore not covered by copyright law.  Furthermore, the news sight from which it was taken may certainly be accountable for any copyright violations, as the scandal is hard to understand without the illustration.  (Druid135 • contribs) 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1) No, some 17-year-olds showing poor judgment of this sort does not qualify as a notable event in a school's history.

2) If proms reveal a great deal about the character of the school as you say, then how unfortunate that my verbiage about the school's proms in general got deleted.

3) If the incident shows that the school, as stated above, encourages free thought, subtlety of thinking, and religious objectivity, as well as a healthy sense of humor...then perhaps the text should state those conclusions more clearly, because many readers are likely to come to an entirely different conclusion.

4) Some of my verbiage had been an effort to show that the students' chosen theme was meant to be a parody, or humorous. (Burroughs proms and after-parties are held on campus under adult supervision, unlike many other high schools whose students hold unsupervised hotel parties on prom night.) Yet that verbiage has been removed, so clearly somebody (?) is not interested in showing that the students that year displayed that sense of humor mentioned above.

5) If the news site that published the invitation may be accountable for copyright violations as was stated above, does it really not bother anyone that the graphic continues to be displayed here 24/7/365?

The section about the prom scandal seemed to be blowing the incident out of proportion. I did not delete the section, but I tried to make the information more balanced. Rolling it back to the more inflammatory version seems unfair. A misstep of this variety made by a small fraction of the student body is hardly a notable event in the 85-year history of a school.Pcbd (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the inconvenience. Your verbiage was impossible to replace because you had deleted the entire section. Clearly Pcbd and Druid have different takes on this. Let's work together to make sure this article is unbiased, accurate, and informative Druid135 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, Pcbd. Regarding 1: Since the prom theme and event were sanctioned by the school, this event clearly was not "some 17-year-olds exercising bad judgment.  Furthermore, as indicated on the illustration (and here is another reason for including the illustration) the parents of the junior class sponsored the event.  Regarding 2: I apologize for deleting your verbiage.  Remember, though, that you deleted the entire section.  Regarding 3: Agreed.  Yet Wikipedia has a responsibility to be unbiased.  See the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality.  Regarding 4:  Please do reintroduce the parody element.  When I re-edited the article, Pcbd had already deleted the entire section.  It was irretrievable  Regarding 5: See point #1.  Also, since the illustration is news and the news source published it, there is no issue of copyright violation.  See the guidelines under the Wikipedia image use policy.

Many thanks to Jauerback for explaining where I went wrong by posting on my own talk page instead of the article's talk page! I thwack myself on the forehead. Now I understand better why Druid135 called it vandalism; Druid135 probably had no idea that I'd been trying to get feedback/permission/consensus. To sum up: I have been asking whether three years isn't long enough to leave this paragraph up there. The mistake was made and apologies were made. One could argue for this paragraph's relevance in 2009, but now that it's three years later, any relevance has faded, in my opinion. Maybe Druid135 can explain why this incident can still be seen as relevant. Pcbd (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The farther this recedes in time, the less encyclopedic this seems. The apogee of community outrage would seem to be "dozens of posts" (both pro and con) on a single web site. Even given that the school ultimately apologized, the kerfuffle just doesn't seem to have been that big a deal. I'd support deleting the paragraph, or at least paring it down. PRRfan (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it was more than a kerfuffle, or it wouldn't have made the news--and several blogs and web sites, as a simple google search for "John Burroughs School prom invitation" will still show. Do we really have to debate this every six months? Druid135


 * It was pretty much exactly a kerfuffle; cheeky invitations go out, some people take offense, school apologizes. Lasting consequence: just about zero. PRRfan (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: With each passing year this paragraph becomes even less relevant. Pcbd (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tightened; demoted. PRRfan (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on John Burroughs School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060930132946/http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id=183 to http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id=183
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070716221721/http://www.jburroughs.org:80/alum/alumniawards.html to http://www.jburroughs.org/alum/alumniawards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050302044616/http://slate.msn.com:80/id/2112694/fr/rss/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2112694/fr/rss/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Burroughs School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130212224/http://jburroughs.org/about-jbs/facts-about-burroughs to http://jburroughs.org/about-jbs/facts-about-burroughs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927103614/http://www.jburroughs.org/academics/college-counseling/matriculation to http://www.jburroughs.org/academics/college-counseling/matriculation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117175231/http://quadfun.club/about to http://www.quadfun.club/about
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104205129/http://www.thetelegraph.com/sports/article_1a564dc6-2f9a-11e2-99b4-0019bb30f31a.html to http://www.thetelegraph.com/sports/article_1a564dc6-2f9a-11e2-99b4-0019bb30f31a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720014459/http://stlbeacon.org/ to https://www.stlbeacon.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)