Talk:Richmond Secondary School/Archive 1

Latest Edits
As of right now, the page is acceptable, especially compared to other Richmond schools. I have deleted several comments on this talk page however, since they are fairly vulgar and inappropriate. Dgiraffes (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

assess
Needs references to move above a "start". Referenced alukmni would help with rating importance. A few pics? Welcome. Victuallers 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

'Multiculturalism'
Somebody please produce evidence that the school is majority Chinese. It doesn't matter if you think it's obvious to anyone who attends, you need a citation here.


 * well... what sort of proof do you need? student list of all the students? pictures every year?


 * If you go to the 'Richmond, British columbia' page, in the demographics section, there's a link to a survey which shows that the visible minority is at 59% in richmond.


 * Statistically, this will pretty much mean that the majority of RHS is chinese, unless you think that there's a reason that chinese people will particularly avoid RHS.


 * You can't link to something representing Richmond as a whole. It's not encyclopedic. It's not an offhand remark you can make without citing some kind of reference, as to the uninitiated it would seem like a strange kind of assertion to put forth. Given that most schools in Canada are ethnically rather hegemonic, it needs a citation. Some kind of remark like "it is a very multicultural school would be fine, but to assert something like what has been asserted without proof is very POV.


 * I should also add that including "Taiwanese" in the multicultural blurb is not factual. Taiwan (or the Republic of China) is a political construct, and ethnically people of Taiwanese citizenship, birth, etc, are Chinese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CloutierFan02 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't write anything about the taiwanese... but yes I do know that they are chinese... And the article says that the majority are of chinese decent Key word is majority.

And yes I can link to something representing richmond since it's an survey. And simple statistics can prove that unless something is keeping chinese away from this school, it will have a majority of the population. (since the survey linked is a census not a sample and the mean of a population = average mean of samples)

are you a teacher there? I used to be a student there, and if you are, then you can conduct a simple survey to find out. In fact, Mr. Hammershdmit does these case studies with his Gr.11/12 IB geo students... the first case study they do is whether RHS is multicultural... simply borrow one of his previous case studies and you can find out with the data (surveys that the students do) needed to prove that chinese is the majority (below).

Say a 30 student random sample with a null hypothesis of pi being 0.5 (50%)for chinese and then simply do a chi-squared test for univariate categorical data and if out of 30 students, 21 are chinese and 9 are non- chinese then to a significance level of 0.035 I can say that these proportions are not in 50-50% ratio.. common sense will tell you that the chinese are in majority.

The calculations: H0 = p(others)= p(chinese)= 0.5 df = 1 n=30 X^2 = (((21-15)^2)/15)+(((9-15)^2)/15) = 4.8

Further, all I need to prove is that the chinese population is the majority, and if I split the categories into three (caucasian, others, chinese) and use pi = 0.333 then

df = 2 n=30 H0 = p(caucasian) = p(filipino) = p(chinese)= 0.333 X^2 = (((18-10)^2)/10)+(((6-10)^2)/10) +(((6-10)^2)/10) = 9.6

In this case, only 18 chinese, 6 caucasians and 6 others are needed to prove that of these, one of them is a majority and with a significance level of 0.01 that these three variables are NOT equal and that means one of them MUST be majority or minority. I chose 6 caucasians and 6 others since these values will favor your argument the most (works as a safety factor for my argument)

again, common sense will tell you that the majority is chinese.

It is abundantly clear that the chinese population is the majority (I've been to that school and I know how many chinese and non-chinese are in my classes) Further, ANYONE who's been to RHS will agree that at LEAST 18 out of 30 people in a random sample of RHS students are chinese.


 * This is an encylopedia, "common sense" will not do as proof. I could mosey on over to the Bill O'Reilly article and write in that anyone with a lick of common sense knows he's an idiot, but that wouldn't do. You need a citation for something like that. It does not matter if it is obvious to anyone who's ever been there, if you're going to make a claim like that, you need to link to a source that states that. I have been to RHS, I do know what it's like there, but most Wikipedians do not. You need to link to a reputable source that demonstrates that. A link to a page on the school's website would be fine, for instance.


 * Please create an account, and I will submit this talk page for mediation. You must create an account or you cannot take part in the mediation.--CloutierFan02 22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this .pdf document, Chinese only account for a minority of the city's population, about 30%, ethnically. Granted, the data on the city's site is from 2001, but it's not difficult to extrapolate it over six years given that the city has grown only by 7,000-9,000 since then. http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/pp_hf_206254.pdf It's a plurality, but nowhere near a majority. --CloutierFan02 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

the math is here:

65,325-50,215= 15,110

15,110/50,215 = 30.09% <-- the statistic you thought was the percent of chinese

Although the PDF you've brought might have proved that the chinese is a plurality (relative minority). BUT since the chinese population has been GROWING 30% from 1996 to 2001 there is no reason to assume that the statistics you've provided is valid in today's date.

Can someone post a picture any graduating class pictures from recent times? then we can finally put this to rest. If no one does, When I get back home I'll count all the chinese in a complete grade of RHS (unless you have reason to believe that ethnicity changes from grade to grade) in whatever yearbook I've got. Then I can plug in the numbers to the statistics I've done above and finally put this to rest.


 * Actually, Richmond's population has increased from about 148,000 in 1996 to over 184,000 today. The figures given were about 30% of the population as well as the growth rate. If we are to assume growth rate has been constant at 30% every five years, in 2006 the Chinese population would have been 84,000, which is still a plurality. For Christ's sake, read between the lines and do some calculations. I am re-adding the citation needed tag, as you really should start doing your homework. Create an account by tomorrow, or I will submit this for mediation without you having a say.


 * do I really need to spoon feed the conclusion for you? Unless you can come up with a hard citation that a majority of Richmond High's students are of Chinese descent, quit your whining. It doesn't matter if you think it's blatantly obvious, you NEED A CITATION IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Encyclopedia Britannica would cite a source, why shouldn't Wikipedia? I am not necessarily against the statement being there, but it needs a citation and in the absence of one, a citation needed flag. It is a controversial statement to make, because to the uninitiated it seems implausible, given that less than four percent of Canadians, ten percent of British Columbians, and fifty percent of Richmond-ites are of Chinese descent. Across the board they're minorities, so you need a citation when claiming that the school is principally comprised of them.


 * I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this.--CloutierFan02 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are seriously retarded. '''The figures given were Growth rates. Chinese ethnicity increased by 30 percent from during 1996 to 2001. NOT Growth rate AND population.''' Want to prove me wrong? do the calculations then. Telling me to read between the line? fucking cunt, what do you think statistics are? If I had three samples of two populations both populations having the same mean, but different variability, statistics "reads between the line" to determine whether the variability is just sampling variability or whether there really are differences in the mean. This is reading between the lines with statistics/ math. All my claims were supported by calculations...Where are your calculations?

I already added that it was a plurality aka relative majority so I don't get what the fuck you're bitching about. And then you ramble on about reading between the lines? Where's the citations in reading between the lines? hypocrite.

Spoon feed the conclusion? What is the highest level of education you have? You ARE retarded, no need of citations on that. Want evidence?

-Your claim that, "You can't link to something representing Richmond as a whole. It's not encyclopedic." which is clearly untrue as surveys/demographics do just that.

-"It is a controversial statement to make, because to the uninitiated it seems implausible, given that less than four percent of Canadians, ten percent of British Columbians, and fifty percent of Richmond-ites are of Chinese descent." The first statement applies to the whole of canada, the second to british Columbia, none of which is RICHMOND, where RICHMOND secondary school is at. Nice try using false premise to justify your POV.

-The third is old statistic that you provided in your biased premise is old. But POV warrior clouter doesn't care about being a hypocrite and heads off assuming that the trend continues, given that you haven't done any kind of regression analysis, and therefore no proof at all that it's A-OK to extrpolate. I mean, to POV warriors, anything to make a false premise work, don't let a little thing I call Dangers of extrapolation stop you clouterfan.

-And then stating my statistics as "common sense"? You clearly don't even understand such simple statistics. It irrefutably proves (the first one) that chinese proportions do NOT equal other proportions. The common sense/basic logic is in deciding, that if chinese proportion does not equal "other" proportion, which is which proportion is larger.... duh... I guess it wouldn't matter even if I took out my year book and proved this shit cause then you'll just cite the no original research policy. And the school is not going to post a whole list of everyone in that school with their ethnicity. So this will become forever "citation needed".

-Lastly, about your comment that it's implausible because of blah -blah - blah.. Implausible? Ever heard of china town? I mean, there's nothing special about richmond... other then the fact that various malls catered to the chinese population including a new 130 million dollar building catered exclusively to the chinese... I guess the fairchild group were really stupid not to hire clouterfan as their demographics researchers since it's highly implausible this is possible since "given that less than four percent of Canadians, ten percent of British Columbians, and fifty percent of Richmond-ites are of Chinese descent."

I've got an idea for you, why don't you head on over to all pages dealing with emotion and put "citation needed" on every single one of their claims? I mean, surely there's a hard citation on emotion right? And I'm sure you can back your "citation needed" with the surefire claim that "It doesn't matter if you think it's obvious to anyone who [feels emotions]attends, you need a citation here."

I'm sadden that not more people visit this page, because if they did, they would have the pleasure of laughing at your stupidity.

How old are you? what level of education do you have?

I conclude with one last humorous statement from clouter..."It is a controversial statement to make" Really? Because it seems only me and you are talking about it.

"He frequently contradicts himself by saying one night that things in Iraq are not going well, and then the next night declaring America winning in Iraq." -cloutierfan (no citation)

"The term is also often used by multi-level marketing companies as a euphemism for door-to-door sales practices involving cold calling and street pitching of low quality merchandise." -cloutierfan (no citation)


 * I'm going to be mentioning your behaviour to whatever passes for authorities on Wikipedia. There was no need for you to get rude, abusive, and insulting. Once more, Chinese do not comprise the majority of the population in Richmond, so a citation is needed for the statement that the school is comprised primarily of Chinese. Richmond's present population is 182,424. In 2001, it was 171,021. If every single new resident was Chinese in ethnicity, the Chinese population would still be only 76,728. That is not a majority. This is basic math.--CloutierFan02 04:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, all. CloutierFan02 is correct, a statistical breakdown or observation about the ethnicities of the RSS student body will require a valid citation, or may not be included. Editors are requested to peruse WP:V and WP:NOT, as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF so as to ensure that communication remains constructive and civil. Please remember that off-topic content on talkpages may be removed, and repeated personal attacks can result in a block. Thanks and happy editing! Anchoress 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I found this: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reports/pdfs/student_stats/03838065.pdf which includes information on languages spoken at home. Cantonese, Mandarin and other forms of chinese add up to 54.8%, while Cantonese, Mandarin, other Chinese, Korean, Russian, and Philipino (ie aisian languages) add up to 64.7%. I dunno, is this proof enough?

Can someone put up a need general cleanup?
This page is clearly way below wiki standards. Just look at that jewish lunch thing at the bottom of the page, totally disjointed.

As far as I know, there is no such club! 24.83.113.244 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
Per a request left at the Wikiproject Schools Assessment Page, I am assessing this article, based on the standards for B Class articles:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
 * While this article has seen massive improvement in referencing, there are still some items that require under student life and in the history section that could be cited. Overall this is a strength of the article.  I strongly urge editors to use citation templates (found here)

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
 * This is also not a great weakness, but there are notable omissions. For a school opened since 1927, the history section seems quite small.  The article notes that the school is over 50% Chinese, but there is no mention about whether the school has always been this way, or how it came to be (either way would seem vital to understanding the school).

3. The article has a defined structure.✅
 * The article is very well structured. This is probably the article's greatest strength.

4. The article is reasonably well-written.
 * While the article is far from an abomination, there are issues that need to be addressed. The leadin is really short and does not seem to give me an overview of the article's subject.  Pleas consult Wikipeadia's Manual of Style regarding the lead for more information.  At the end of the history section, there is a note that the old building was demolished and replaced by an astrotuf.  Field?  Statue?  Park?  Hockey rink?  ;-)  Staff and students should not be mentioned in the article unless they meet the general notability guidelines.  The only exceptions are principals, superintendents, etc.  Assistant principals, teachers, coaches, etc should be removed.  Listing and referencing provincial championships is good, but including scores is not so good (it comes across as violating WP:PEACOCK).  I would also eliminate the coach's opinions on the demise of the basketball program.  It really is not encyclopedic.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.✅
 * There is an appropriate infobox and a picture of the school. Given the age of the school, I would hope more pictures from the past might be added.

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.✅
 * I don't think there should be any problems with a majority of the world's English speaking population getting the gist of this article.

Overall, the article has seen great improvement, and is heading in the right direction. Based on this, I am pushing the article up to a "C" Class rating. I am not changing the importance rating because there is no information here that the school has an unusually long list of notable alumni, or that the school occupies a unique/relatively unique place in major local/national/international history.

To all editors involved in that: kudos to you! I wish editors the best of luck in continuing to improve this article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Richmond Secondary 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/20100613125802/http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca:80/news/sdinfo/docs/sdp_38_richmond.pdf to http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/news/sdinfo/docs/sdp_38_richmond.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101128192651/http://media.esportsdesk.com:80/images/leagues/can_bc_bchsfa/graphics/2004VarsityChampions.doc to http://media.esportsdesk.com/images/leagues/can_bc_bchsfa/graphics/2004VarsityChampions.doc

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 04:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)