Talk:Princeton High School (New Jersey)/Archive 1

Schedule
Is it really necessary to print a schedule here? - S. Komae (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
I'm going to remove all unnecessary parts of the article. This article should be our guideline. Also, someone needs to add the curriculum. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs a clean up, but I definitely think the achievement gap is worth mentioning, since it was reported on in the New York Times, and in my experience (non-verifiable) it was extreme. Probably the entire schedule shouldn't be mentioned, but perhaps the lab-days being connected with gym and short Wednesdays should be mentioned? Just a thought. Mak emi 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right; some cleanup is desirable. I may work on the curriculum sometime. As for the schedule, yes, it needs to go. And went it did, though information on the general aspect of the school day need not totally disappear. This is a relevant aspect of the day. Another thing that ought to be described: peer group, a rather unique program. Btw, standard style here at Wikipedia is Article title, not Article Title. Just a headsup! D. G. 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Verification of information in re the Tower
Here's a copy of the HTML comment I inserted. Maybe I should remove it. I though t it would be reasonable to place it there, inline, so that it would be visible to those who might edit that section. It follows:

IN RE: Verification of information in this section. Most of this was written by me, Domingo Galdos. It replaced what was previously here re the Tower, which was a half-wit ungrammatical runon sentence. Everything in this section is true and has been verified by me. I know, I know, this sounds like "trust me." I'm sorry about that. My sources are the archived issues of the Tower itself from 1925 through 2006. I wish I could simply point people at Google or something, but not all history can be found a click away, sorry :) (If that were true, maybe Wikipedia would be less relevant. Or maybe not. That's a more complex topic!) What I CAN say is that I know of at least one source for these texts and that is the local library where they are stored. If you'd like more information or would like to know more about a specific fact or claim in this section, I would be happy to direct you to the source if you're in the Princeton area, or if I have time make appropriate photocopies, etc. You can e-mail me at galdosd at gmail dot com. Again, apologies for the somewhat "trust me" attitude, but it's not exactly just me. Not all books and information collections can (yet, as of 2006) be found on the web, that's just a fact... for now! D. G. 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't old issues of the Tower used to be online? Are there problems with the servers? You could maybe go yell at Peter Thompson about it if you are there and want them to be back up. Mak emi 20:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes they did but (1) they only went back to 2001 or so anyway. Maybe as far back as late 1990s at best,  May 1996 so relative to the full scope not that much. and (2) not anymore. They don't really have ti together anymore I guess. Used to be phstower.org but it has been down for months. The latest issue of the Tower specifically acknowledges this, replacing references to the website with references to an e-mail address. D. G. 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Say, who is Peter Thompson? Not anyone at PHS anymore, anyhow. D. G. 01:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And not anyone who worked with the tower on or after 2000, going by google cache of phstower.org's staff pages. D. G. 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed the problems too...How long has the site been offline? It's taking way too long, someone should have already fixed it by now. Hey Dom, maybe you could do something about it. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Peter Thompson is the head of the Media/Technology office (that locked door on the way to the old gym). I'm pretty positive he's still there. He's Mrs. Thompson's husband. Too bad it's not online anymore. It was actually better than my college paper. How sad is that? Mak emi 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming

 * Okay, let's get this straight for once and for all. What are we going to name the page? --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 Options: 

1. Princeton High School (New Jersey)

Support: Oppose:
 * Seems obvious to me. Thanks for moving it to this. This is the only Princeton High School which is in New Jersey, so it is the simplest title which is consistent with other Wikipedia page titles and is not ambiguous. D. G. 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto, well-said. The others are verbose or include off-point distinctions. Bob schwartz 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, of course. Support. Mak (talk)  16:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Princeton High School (Borough of Princeton, New Jersey)

Support:

Oppose:

3. Princeton High School, Princeton, New Jersey

Support:

Oppose:

4. Other (specify below)

Support:

Oppose:

ZIP code
The "banner" graphic on the PHS Web site says 08542, but every other place I found on the site says 08540, including PDFs of official documents like the school profile. I think whoever made the graphic made a mistake. See for example PHS letterhead also says 08540. BTW, according to ZIP Code(!), 08542 is used for deliveries in the central area of the borough of Princeton, and also some PO boxes. PHS is at the very edge of the borough, not in the central area. Bob schwartz 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/guidanceserv.html
 * http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/PHSprofile04-05.pdf
 * http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/courseofstudies2005-06/index.html
 * http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/courseofstudies2006-07/index.html
 * http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/courseofstudies2006-07/courseofstudies06-07.pdf
 * http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/PHSprofile2003-04.pdf
 * http://athletics.prs.k12.nj.us/Directions-for-PHS-sports.pdf
 * Fair enough. I'll change it. Mak (talk)  02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a letter from PHS in front of me and it says 08540. D. G. 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's Feeder Patterns & Borough/Township edits
About a month or two ago (?), User:WhisperToMe revamped the PHS article to state Borough of Princeton everywhere, including in the address (!!!) and in the first line of the article, etc. Simultaneously, (and perhaps this ought to be discussed seperately, I admit) he added a "Feeder patterns" section which redundantly restates that all students in Princeton (legally both the Borough and the Township, to be specific for him) and in Cranbury enter PHS.

I'm not sure if the article mentioned whether PHS was physically located in the Township or the Borough previously, but I edited the article after his edits to make it more clear and clean, removing the excessive blabbing about the Borough and stating the school's legal location in the first named section. The redundant feeder patterns section I also removed after ensuring that that information had been adequately treated where it belonged.

WhisperToMe has, quite a while later, now reinserted the Borough references all over as well as his redundant Feeder patterns section. I'm starting a talk section for us to agree on a consensus on this in the interests of avoiding a revert war. For the time being, I'm reverting the article to its former state since it would seem to me that no one has any problem with that other than WhisperToMe.

For reference, here's a copy of his justification on my talk page:


 * I have reverted several of your edits because they take out necessary information.


 * Removing the fact that the school is located in the borough of Princeton does NOT make it more concise. The borough of Princeton has its own fire department, city codes, etc. It is a completely separate entity from the Princeton Township.


 * Also, all high schools must keep their "Feeder patterns" section, because it tells what schools "Feed" into the high school. Removing that section makes the article a worse encyclopedia article.

In response to which I say, the information is not necessary-- it is redundant. The article already states that the school is located legally in the Borough in the first named section, and the Feeder patterns information is stated in the article lead itself! All high schools must keep their feeder patterns sections you say? Sounds like bunk to me. A foolish consistency, and what not. Removing that section makes an article that is easier to read because it is less filled with redundant bunk.

In addition, I think WhisperToMe has a mistaken impression of the "Two Princetons" situation. He is (and I mean no disrespect by this) a Texan who as far as I know, at least knows about the two Princetons from reading Wikipedia. Please do not take me wrong, I don't mean to make a personal attack or imply that only those who are personally familiar with Princeton have the authority to edit an article related to it. I only mean to say that WhisperToMe's impression is wrong, and subsequently the edits which are made while under that impression are also.

Thoughts from others, please? If you comment, perhaps you could note whether you support or oppose WhisperToMe's edits? Thanks. D. G. 03:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Ǒ

To clarify, the feeder pattern information is (without the WhisperToMe edits, I mean) already in the SECOND SENTENCE OF THE WHOLE ARTICLE and the borough information is in the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST NAMED SECTION! And the feeder patterns are not even really correct. Elementary schools don't feed directly into high schools, and he missed the charter school, unless that's being counted as an elementary school. D. G. 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

" he added a "Feeder patterns" section which redundantly restates that all students in Princeton (legally both the Borough and the Township, to be specific for him) and in Cranbury enter PHS."

No. There must be a consistent format in the high school articles in Wikipedia. ALL HIGH SCHOOL articles except for K-12 schools have/will have feeder pattern information. I'm trying to make a consistent format on this encyclopedia.

Also, you left out important information. That section linked to Cranbury School (which has a separate article) while the first sentence didn't! The article MUST link to Cranbury School. And I want the link to reappear ASAP.

I do not care about the colloquial situation of Princeton. I know that most people think of Princeton as one "entity". Well, I say that thought does not belong in an encyclopedia. All that thought does is take away from the defacto separate municipality section. It hurts the article's encyclopedic value by taking attention away from the fact that PHS is in the borough. I don't care if borough is mentioned twice, or three times. The school is located legally in the borough, NOT in Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton, New Jersey does NOT legally exist.

"To clarify, the feeder pattern information is (without the WhisperToMe edits, I mean) already in the SECOND SENTENCE OF THE WHOLE ARTICLE and the borough information is in the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST NAMED SECTION!"

The municipality MUST appear in the first sentence every time. I am trying to establish a consistent format on this encyclopedia.

I am not angry over the remarks as a Texan. Rather, I am disappointed over the loss of encyclopedic value because of: A. the orienting of things towards colloquial place names rather than legal place names. B. the loss of the feeder schools section, and the loss of the link to Cranbury School. C. The deviation from an established format that I am trying to introduce. WhisperToMe

By the way, User:Alansohn sides with me on using Borough of Princeton so extensively http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=56928994&oldid=56698287 WhisperToMe 05:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The mailing address is 151 Moore St., Princeton, NJ, not Borough of Princeton, NJ. So that clearly needs to be fixed.

If I were the sole author of this article, I would probably omit the fact that the physical location of the high school is in the Borough. To me it is clearly not an important fact that the reader needs to know, so I would not place it in the first section, let alone the first sentence. Saying the school is in Princeton is on-point and better reflects reality.

User:WhisperToMe states, "I insist on it saying Borough of Princeton in the first line." There's too much insisting and not enough compromising around this for my taste. The school's physical location in the Borough is a true fact, and a local Trivial Pursuit curiosity to the extent that the Borough boundary swings out to include the high school's grounds.

So while I would prefer to omit this Borough/Township stuff as distracting off-point bloat, I think the middle ground is to include the physical location somewhere in the body of the article, such as in the Overview section where its location is currently compared with that of the middle school. Bob schwartz 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, WhisperToMe, you must have meant de jure, not de facto, I think. Makes a big difference since in this particular context they're pretty much opposites. I'm going to repeat: your main concern here is consistency with a format on some other high school articles--a format which you are currently in the process of inventing and attempting to popularise. The response of myself, and it would seem others as well, is that it is inappropriate to use this article as a tool to further the popularity of a new format you're trying to develop. There is no requirement or need that any given two articles have similar section headings simply because they are both of the same category. There is no loss of encyclopedic value. If the first sentence of the first section isn't good enough for you, then I'm afraid only total control over the placing and wording of all information in this and other articles may satisfy you.

By the way, so far there doesn't seem to be a consenus in your favour for inserting the feeder patterns and borough stuff, so could you please not reinsert it? Thanks. D. G. 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry, my mistake--you didn't reinsert it, someone else did. From Houston just like you, oddly enough. I don't suppose you know each other? Just wondering. D. G. 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"User:WhisperToMe states, "I insist on it saying Borough of Princeton in the first line." There's too much insisting and not enough compromising around this for my taste. The school's physical location in the Borough is a true fact, and a local Trivial Pursuit curiosity to the extent that the Borough boundary swings out to include the high school's grounds.

So while I would prefer to omit this Borough/Township stuff as distracting off-point bloat, I think the middle ground is to include the physical location somewhere in the body of the article, such as in the Overview section where its location is currently compared with that of the middle school. Bob schwartz 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"

In THAT case, what I will do is this. I will leave the borough stuff out of the infobox heading and use the assigned U.S. Postal address. In exchange, the first sentence will mention the Borough of Princeton. The borough of Princeton is NOT a mere neighborhood of "Princeton" - it is an independent legal entity with its own government, mayor, police force, etc. And I really do mean "de facto" - since only a few services are shared between the two Princetons. WhisperToMe 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"So while I would prefer to omit this Borough/Township stuff as distracting off-point bloat, I think the middle ground is to include the physical location somewhere in the body of the article, such as in the Overview section where its location is currently compared with that of the middle school. Bob schwartz 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"

No, this isn't the case of a neighborhood of a city. This is the municipality itself. The school is technically in the Borough, and that must be stated at the top of the article so everyone knows it and will know it. The borough is a real entity that taxes, provides fire service, police service, etc. If this was the case of a neighborhood, then it would be okay to relegate it to the body of the article. WhisperToMe 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, elementary schools DO feed into high schools. Indirectly, yes, but they do.

Also, no, the charter school does not feed into the high school per se as it has no defined attendance boundaries or limitations. It CAN have a lot of people who choose to go to PHS, and that can be mentioned. WhisperToMe 22:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) If you honestly mean de facto and not de jure then you are incorrect. That's all there is to it.

(2) At this point, especially after seeing your latest response, I am afraid it's difficult to reason with you! A lot of what you are saying is circular logic and lot of other things which you say are very pedantic and "technical" or sometimes verge on violation of WP:POINT.

Examples (my commentary in parentheses afterwards:


 * 1) And if I created articles for Witherspoon Middle and all the elementary schools (And I easily could)? Boy, that would be cumbersome to mention all of them in the first paragraph. (!!)
 * 2) Part of the reason why I argue for that section is easy - we may have people who don't look hard enough who may ask "Uhh, where's the feeder patterns section?" (What are you talking about? Those are your sections. Sure people will look for them, if you succeed in your cause.)
 * 3) I will place it in the school manual of style. Exception (!!)
 * 4) Also, relegating the fact that PHS is in the borough to a small section in the article is hiding where it really is. (You call the first sentence of Overview a small section hiding where it really is?)
 * 5) Actually, elementary schools DO feed into high schools. Indirectly, yes, but they do.
 * 6) Also, no, the charter school does not feed into the high school per se as it has no defined attendance boundaries or limitations. It CAN have a lot of people who choose to go to PHS, and that can be mentioned.

I also notice how you keep going back to the fire department point. Can't think of very many other services where the two government bodies have full independence, huh? Education, sewage, and lots of others certainly wouldn't be good examples. Hell, Borough officials attend Township council meetings half the time, and vice versa.

I'm sorry if I'm no longer very receptive to communicating with you or seem hostile. It's just you seem very bent upon enforcing consistency and conformity with a style and format which you have just devised. And I don't understand this:

''Let's go through this one by one... "Sir, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. " You mean the consistency of using dates and following a Manual of Style?''

What does that mean? Dates? What do dates ahve to do with anything here? And the stuff you are doing is not mentioned in any Manual of Style unless you just unilaterally inserted it into one right now.

Anyway. Looks like we're at an impasse. A most peacable and appropriate procedure would be to discuss controversial changes on the Talk page and ensure a consensus, not to unilaterally edit and revert to ensure your edits "win." As an administrator you should have higher standards. Please don't reinsert your material without a consensus, which there certainly isn't now. D. G. 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know I should not get involved in this, but I just couldn't help it after seeing this thing on my watch page. User:DG should stop acting like he or she owns this article and let other people edit/add factual information&mdash;including technical ones. You, DG, are the one that is creating an edit war because you keep reverting it to your version. You seem to think you have a reason to revert just because you are the primary contributor to this article and that it makes you the owner of this article, which you are not. You should also discuss on talk page for concensus as well, not just reverting and asking others to discuss. How about you stop your reverts and wait for consensus. &mdash;RJN 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO it makes sense for the "legal" location to be in the lead of the article, not in the infobox which gives the address (since the address is Princeton, not the Borough), and to leave it out for the rest of the article. As far as feeder patterns go, I have no particular feeling, but I have to say the section on the choir is thoroughly bloated. Mak (talk)  01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with your in the lead but not with the infobox idea :) WhisperToMe 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow.

Well first off, I completely renounce any such claims of ownership. I definitely never made any. You've inferred them wrongly. Secondly, what you're saying is rather hypocritical. First you say that I am reverting and starting an edit war, just as I said-- ah, but: "You should also discuss on talk page for concensus as well, not just reverting and asking others to discuss. How about you stop your reverts and wait for consensus."

What I don't understand is the assumption that WhisperToMe's edits should, by default be left in. The reason the version without WTM's edits should remain until consensus is reached is obviously because that version was there first. Suppose I went to an article and made up some sections that should be put in and put in the edits, then there were a couple of reverts and I claimed that the reverters of my edits should stop and wait for consensus-- conveniently, stopping as soon as my edit is the one frozen upon?

By the way, I find it rather interesting that the only time you've ever edited this article has been starting today, on two occasions, both to reinsert WTM's edits. And you, too, are from Houston. Are you just a friend of his he called to help out, or a sockpuppet, or something?

ANYWAY. To sum up, what you've just done and said is stupid and ridiculous. I'd revert except that that would run afoul of the three-revert-rule, which WTM can easily enforce, being an administrator, as chance would have it. So as usual, the article is "frozen on the wrong version." I'm going to post a request for comments and ask for, if possible, specific points supporting or opposing the WTM edits. D. G. 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this ridiculous controversy can't possibly be good for my health. So I have a better idea. You do whatever you want with it and let somebody else fight the fires. I'll go away to do something else for a few weeks. Though I suspect the article will not be materially different then since WTM and RJN only know how to shuffle around words that are already there and reduplicate them, not create new ones. Good luck. D. G. 04:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)