Talk:Bronx High School of Science/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Principal Reidy

There was breathless reporting today of problems between teachers and principal Redy. Someone else reverted it, because it was unsourced and didn't have a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). My own feeling, and it is just one person's opinion, is that a short summary would stick if it were (a) short, (b) less one-sided, and (c) had documentation -- newspaper story, etc. Otherwise, it is just defamatory gossip. YMMV. Bellagio99 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a great deal of independent reporting on conflicts between Reidy, parents, staff, and ot seems the rest of the world - but it is less clear if it belongs in an encyclopedia article about the school, at this time. Tvoz |talk 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I propose that The Bronx High School of Science List of Distinguished Alumni be merged into this article. It would be listcruft. Bearian 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since that article is empty and this one still has such a list, you should probably just propose the List article for deletion. The user who created it has had over a month to fill out the list, and there still isn't anyone there, so it's really a dead end. RossPatterson 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The page was empty and unnecessary as we have a sufficient list here. I did it as a redirect - won't that work? Tvoz |talk 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: only the separate page that someone set up for distinguished alumni, but never filled in, has appropriately been removed. It was empty and is handled in this article. Tvoz |talk 17:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bxscience logo.jpg

Image:Bxscience logo.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 Wikipedia: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 04:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bxscience logo.jpg

Image:Bxscience logo.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 Wikipedia: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. [User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 04:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Does This Para. Belong?

There is a polite disagreement between me and ElKevbo about whether the following paragraph belongs in the Bronx HS of Science article (near the top):

Bronx Science has developed a worldwide reputation as one of the best high schools in the United States, public or private. It attracts an intellectually gifted blend of culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse students from New York City.

I say keep it in; El wants to delete as unsourced.

My reasons: 1. It's been in for a long time (sorry, I haven't done the history, but I have been watching for more than 6 months and have always seen it in). I know this ain't a great reason, but

2. It's self-evidentally true, just as it would be for Harvard at a university level.

3. It's well documented throughout the rest of the article.

4. If somebody wants to source it more externally, fine; I don't have the time. But I think reasons 2, 3 (and perhaps 1) are compelling. Indeed, given its lenghty history, perhaps the opposite should be proved: show us that it is not a world-famous school filled with ethnically diverse, smart kids.

Bellagio99, who is (of course) a Bx Sci alum.

Bellagio99 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not self-evident to most people and thus it needs to be sourced. Please support it with citations or remove it as the burden of proof is on those wish the information to be included. --ElKevbo 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove it as original research. --Tom 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, while I think it is an accurate statement, I'd like to know precisely which part of it is deemed as needing sources - the fact that it has a worldwide reutation? that is is seen to be on of the best high schools in the US, public or private? that it "intellectually gifted blend of culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse students" ? I'm not being facetious - which part(s) do you think needs sourcing, and I'll see what I can find. Tvoz |talk 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire statement lacks citations. I'm not sure why this is at all contentious or difficult or why WP:V would not apply here. It's entirely possible that other references already cited can be used to substantiate these grandiose and unprovable claims but they need to be supported otherwise they're just POV academic boosterism. We (purposefully) don't even have such a statement in other articles (like Harvard) for precisely these reasons. State the facts and let the readers drawn their own conclusions.

I think the claims should be removed entirely but if you can provide some really good references then I'll compromise by allowing them to stay. --ElKevbo 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz completely and wholeheartedly. I believe in everything that has been said. For your sourcing pleasure:

[1]

"The Bronx High School of Science, one of the most famous schools in the country, has a proud history of training not only scientists but also authors, business executives, and academic leaders."

"A student who enrolled at Bronx Science after attending private school for many years praises the school's diversity and the fact that students are "down to earth and social."

[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/22450/bronx_high_school_of_science_a_review.html]

"The Bronx High School of Science is fairly one of the best known names in the world. Having produced more Nobel prize winners than most nations (seven in total, all in physics) and five Pulitzer Prize winners, the Bronx High School of Science takes education seriously. But that is not all that Bronx High School of Science takes seriously. It has dozens of clubs, teams, and a shocking number of opportunities (think dark room, green house and holocaust museum). It offers any student a great opportunity to learn in a challenging and safe environment."

[2]

"The primary goal of our educational process is to teach gifted young people to identify problems, devise and test solutions, analyze outcomes and apply information to novel situations."

[3]

That article echoes the previous sources. I was actually sat down with the author of that article, when he visited the school. However, my name was not included in the article.

--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 03:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not impressed with some of those sources. The second source, associatedcontent.com, doesn't appear to be reliable as it "[http://www.associatedcontent.com/company.html is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic for distribution.]" The third source, schools.nyc.gov, appears to be self-authored and thus not terribly reliable in this context. The quote from the last source appears to come from the subject and thus is also not very good as supporting the assertion that "this school is great!"

I'm sure that there are other sources that support the assertion and I look forward to their inclusion in the article. For example, one or more of the references cited above note that unusually high number of Nobel laureates that have graduated from this institution. That is an excellent example of a fact that should be highlighted and cited as a fact that establishes the educational quality of the institution without relying on shifty sources or hopelessly subjective evaluations. --ElKevbo 03:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear ElKevbo, The complete list of Nobel winners -- and other notables (excuse the pun) -- already exists further down in the article. Much of the claim for notability is self-documenting in the remainder of the article. Bellagio99 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BrooklynBen :BrooklynBen is also a Bx Sci alum and a somewhat inexperienced Wikipedia editor who has helped out over perhaps five years. I agree that www.associatedcontent.com is perhaps a questionable source, but if need be I am certain that within a week I could have two to three solid references on the two points that (1) Bronx Science has a strong worldwide reputation and (2) that it is an "intellectually gifted blend of culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse students." I know these truths to be facts from my time in attendance and from recent visits returning to the school. I'm not the most experienced Wiki editor, but I'm certain I could assist here. —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC). --BrooklynBen (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Notables Documented

Here is the notables list from the article. I've kept a good patrol since Oct 06 in stopping questionable notables from being listed. Bellagio99 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bronx High School of Science counts seven Nobel Prize-winning physicists among its graduates:

Leon N. Cooper 1947, Brown University awarded the 1972 Nobel Prize in Physics Sheldon L. Glashow 1950, Boston University, awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics Steven Weinberg 1950, University of Texas at Austin, awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics Melvin Schwartz 1949, Columbia University, awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize in Physics Russell A. Hulse 1966, Princeton University, awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics H. David Politzer 1966, California Institute of Technology, awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics Roy J. Glauber 1941, Harvard University, awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics

No other secondary school in the world has seven Nobel laureates as alumni.[35]

If Bronx Science were a country, it would be tied at 23rd with Spain for number of Nobel laureates (as of 2007). [36] Were Bronx Science a university, it would be tied for 53rd place, matching Duke University and handily beating Ivy League schools Brown and Dartmouth, as well as academic powerhouses such as Purdue, the University of Virginia, and Swarthmore. [37]

Bronx Science also has five Pulitzer Prize-winning graduates:

William Sherman 1963, reporter at the New York Daily News, awarded 1974 William Safire 1947, author and columnist at The New York Times, awarded 1978 Joseph Lelyveld 1954, Executive Editor at The New York Times, awarded 1986 Bernard L. Stein 1959, Editor of the Riverdale Press, awarded 1998 William Taubman 1958, Professor of Political Science at Amherst College, awarded 2004

Six alumni have won the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest scientific honor bestowed by the U.S. President and thus far awarded to 425 scientists and engineers. Bronx Science also counts among its graduates twenty-nine current members of the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS), an honor attained by only about 2,000 American scientists. Twenty-two current members of the United States National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and ten current members of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) are Bronx Science graduates.

Other notable graduates and former students include:

Richard Alba 1959, sociologist of Italian-American life, Vice-President of American Sociological Association Bruce Ames 1946, biologist, winner of National Medal of Science Judith Baumel 1973, poet, winner Walt Whitman Award, 1987 Rosemary Bravo 1969, Vice Chairman, Burberry, former President, Saks Fifth Avenue Harold Brown 1943, former U.S. Secretary of Defense (1977-1981) Stokely Carmichael 1960, Black Power activist Majora Carter 1984, recipient of MacArthur Foundation fellowship ("genius grant") Gregory Chaitin 1964, mathematician, computer scientist Marsha Chandler 1964?, Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer at the Salk Institute; former Executive Vice Chancellor, University of California San Diego Dominic Chianese 1948, actor (best known as "Uncle Junior" on the HBO series The Sopranos) Jon Cryer 1983, actor Richard J. Danzig 1961, 71st Secretary of the U.S. Navy Bobby Darin (as Walden Robert Cassotto) 1953, singer, songwriter, actor Samuel Delany 1960, science fiction author E. L. Doctorow 1948, author of Ragtime and other books Jonah Falcon 1988, talk show host Jon Favreau 1984, actor/director Jerald G. Fishman,1962, CEO, Analog Devices Jeffrey S. Flier,1964, Dean, Harvard Medical School Todd Gitlin 1959, writer and social critic, former head, Students for a Democratic Society Harrison J. Goldin 1953, former NYC Comptroller Jeff Greenfield 1960, CNN reporter/commentator Pablo Guzmán (as Paul Guzman) 1968, CBS-2 reporter Clyde Haberman 1962, New York Times reporter/columnist Michael Hirsh 1960s, Head, Cookie Jar group (animation); founder, Nelvana animation Martin Hellman, 1962, Computer Scientist Scott Ian (as Scott Ian Rosenfeld) 1982, rock musician Martin Jay,1961, prominent intellectual historian Michael Kay 1978, New York Yankees sportscaster Leonard Kleinrock, 1951, computer scientist Leslie Lamport, 1957, computer scientist Leonard Lauder, 1950, former president Estee Lauder Inc., and an heir to the Estee Lauder fortune. Ronald Lauder 1961, former NYC mayoral candidate and an heir to the Estee Lauder fortune, former US Ambassador to Austria Bill Lann Lee 1967, United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Clinton Administration James Kyson Lee 1993, actor Jeanette Lee, professional pool player (attended, did not graduate) Harold O. Levy 1970, former New York City Schools' Chancellor Daniel Libeskind 1965, Freedom Tower architect John Liu 1985, New York City Council Member Nita Lowey 1955, Member, U.S. House of Representatives Anthony Marx 1977, President, Amherst College Marvin Minsky 1945, computer scientist Robert Moog 1952, synthesized music pioneer Al Nagler, 1953, optical engineer, founder of Televue Lars-Erik Nelson, 1959, award-winning correspondent and columnist for New York Daily News, Newsweek, Newsday Jay Pasachoff 1959, astronomy professor Martin Peretz 1955, editor-in-chief, The New Republic magazine Kevin Phillips,1957, author and political analyst Richard Price 1967, author and Oscar-nominated screenwriter Robert Price 1950, NYS Commissioner of Investigation Paul Provenza 1975, actor Christopher "Kid" Reid 1982, rap musician and actor Daphne Maxwell Reid 1966, actress Ben Shneiderman 1964, developer of computer visualization and human-computer interaction April Smith 1967, author, Emmy-nominated television producer and writer Dava Sobel 1964, author Michael I. Sovern, former President of Columbia University Norman Spinrad 1957, science fiction author and screenwriter Robert Strom 1961, 2nd biggest winner, The $64,000 Question TV show Worley Thorne, 1950, TV writer and script consultant ("The Paper Chase," "Dallas," "Star Trek: The Next Generation") Neil deGrasse Tyson 1976, Director, Hayden Planetarium at American Museum of Natural History Eliot Wald 1962, TV and film writer ("Saturday Night Live," "Camp Nowhere") Gary Weiss,1971, journalist and author Barry Wellman 1959, sociologist, founder of International Network for Social Network Analysis, Fellow Royal Society of Canada Wolf Wigo 1991, Olympic water polo player Dave Winer 1972, computer scientist, blogger George Yancopoulos 1976, scientist, elected to the National Academy of Sciences Bellagio99 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

missing: (as of 4/5/11) : Jeffery A. Krames author and editor/publisher, has a wikipedia page which mentions his having attended Bronx Science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.5.10 (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a new user, I just wanted to add a notable alumnus to the protected page: [Milton Diamond] 1951, Professor Emeritus and winner of the Kinsey and Hirschfeld Medals for contributions in the study of Human Sexuality. It's not mentioned on his wiki page, but there's confirmation here and here. --Semiote (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Semiote

vandalism with my name

all fields in the in the info box were replaced with my name in an act of vandalism. The ip is traced to great neck, ny, and I believe I know who did this. It's embarassing, nonetheless.--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo of campus

Anyone noticed something a little odd about the picture of the campus? Like the fact that it looks exactly like the Temple of Bacchus? I know some parts of the Bronx are run-down but... MrBlondNYC 08:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone uploaded an image of the same name and it replaced the original mural image. I have now rm it from the article. -Herenthere (Talk) 23:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Grace Wong

I first deleted Grace Wong as a notable alumni, but now have reverted my deletion as I found this mention of her as coming from "New York". [4] It would be nice to have direct Bx Sci attribution though. We know we are/were brainy; beauty is great too! ;-) Bellagio99 23:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No! Grace wong is nobody! I graduated with her...class of 2007. Vandalism and should be reverted as such. Cheers!--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 05:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwan Hing Wong - which is the pageant Grace Wong's name according to multiple unrelated sources, who is from New York and 21 years and a college student (which sounds right), is listed in the alumni list for the class of 2004, Ryan. Yours must be a different Grace Wong. I think this one may be correct, but am trying to find reliable sources. I actually had checked it when her name was first added and I found something then that specifically linked the Miss Hong Kong paeant Grace Wong/Kwan Hing Wong to Science, but now I'm having trouble finding it. Tvoz |talk 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow,that post was late at night. I'm embarrassed, I didn't thoroughly look into it!--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if there was only one Grace Wong (a little unlikely in NYC, I'll admit!), "Grace wong is nobody! I graduated with her" is a statement of original research and can't be used to justify removing her from the list. Now, something like "beauty queens aren't notable" is a completely different story, but I'd argue that Miss Hong Kong qualifies. RossPatterson 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Even a runner up.... This is maddening - I wasn't the poster, but when I saw it I checked it out as I always do with new entries to the alum list, and I know that I found a reasonable source in addition to the Science alumni lists that said specifically that the pageant winner went to Science. But now I can't find it - I left a note on the poster's page to see if he has a source. I wouldn't object to it being removed pending location of a source, or keeping it there for now since I know I saw a source previously, but I'd like a little more than the circumstantial evidence of Kwan Hing Wong=class of 2004 (confirmed) , Grace Wong (pageant)=Kwan Hing Wong (confirmed) but - this is the tricky part - the specific alum Kwan Hing Wong=the pageant Grace Wong. In mathematics if a=b and b=c, then a=c - but in real life, well, not necessarily. Tvoz |talk 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Grace Wong is from the high school. She said it on the her personal forum and it is confirmed by the school as I sent a e-mail to the school regarding the issue. The school has confirmed her as a 2004 graduate. The forum source is here: forum message. Scroll down to the November 8, 2007 posts to see the message.

Sam72991 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great - she's in there. But I edited her accomplishments down to one example - Miss Hong Kong 1st runner up seems to me to be her highest achievement - that would be "bigger" than Miss Chinatown - and I don't think we should list more than one example. Perhaps others disagree. Tvoz |talk 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I also added her as a top 15 semifinalist also since that is a international beauty pageant in the world.

Sam72991 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation #15 not valid citation

Hello I am new to editing on wikipedia but I just felt i needed to point out the validity of citation#15. Whenever I click the link, I cannot connect to the server. I am doubtful that this link:http://www.stuyvesant.ourstrongband.org/LandMarkDesignation/Stuy%20Landmark%20Designation.pdf is even valid anymore. As a result, I believe the statement that is supported by this citation be removed from the record as it contains bias. "The initial faculty were comprised in part by a contingent from Stuyvesant High School." this statement is not necessary and implies that Stuyvesant is a superior school by lending some of its staff to help found bronx science. can someone please revalidate the statement with another citation or remove it from the page? thank you for your attention in this matter. Oddnerdout (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC) oddnerdout

The reference is valid regarless of whether you can read it online. There is no Wikipedia rule that references have to be available online. But I've updated this citation (and several others that were unavailable) to point to other copies, mostly from the Internet Archive, and flagged one that I couldn't find another source for. RossPatterson (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The text you object to is from footnote #31 of the reference, near the bottom of page 9: "The second high school specializing in sciences, the Bronx High School of Science, was founded in 1938 with a quarter of its faculty from Stuyvesant." The referenced document is a report prepared by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission's research department - it is quite reliable. RossPatterson (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Science"?

I've reverted the revision by an IP user deleting "Science" in the lead sentence of the article, stating that current students don't use the term. My reasons for the reversion are basically that it violates WP:OR, no evidence is given for the assertion, and the use of "Science" as a nickname has had a longstanding consensus in this article. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this - it may be true that current students don't refer to Science as Science, but there are many more former students than current ones, and we do. Tvoz/talk 04:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As a recent graduate (2009) we refer to it as Bronx Science most of the time. 74.72.174.227 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Science" is completely reasonable as a nickname for the school. I am a Bronx Science alum and would certainly attest that, even if the current students do not use this nickname, that if you approached 1000 New Yorkers who went to high school in the 1970s or 1980s or 1990s and said "I went to Science," that at least 950 of them would assume you meant The Bronx High School of Science.--BrooklynBen (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bronx Science Teacher Report

I'm not the author of this but a friend sent me a link to it. It basically analyzes the annual survey given to teachers by the Board of Ed. [5] -Herenthere (Talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss first

I just reverted 8 linked major edits by Regancy42 -- I believe they need consensus discussion on the BxSci talk page. Bellagio99 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Since when did a clean-up require a consensus? I was simply removing the POV/advert/peacock content. It is not even contentious.-Regancy42 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be any problem at all. The removed material was indeed totally peacockuous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article can use some cleanup but the school is World-Famous and the students are that excellent. I think the edits are over-reaction. As much of that text has stood for years, with many editors, it has reached consensus. Therefore, to change it, should require some discussion and not a super-rush over a quiet Xmas holiday.Bellagio99 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your judgements have obviously been clouded by POV. I'm not denying that it is a "good" school, but the content is not appropriate because it is highly promotional and includes numerous peacock/POV phrases. It is important to adhere to an objective perspective, regardless of the accomplishments of the subject. Also according to WP:CCC "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action". This is not a "super rush", it is a clean up process, one which you have decided to make more difficult for no particular reason. -Regancy42 (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Reg, Please don't call me names. You don't know me, so don't know about my "POV". I am an experienced scholar -- for 40+ years -- and an experienced editor with years and thousands of edits. I know how to handle POV. I graduated from the school so many years that I am not invested in this. As I have said repeatedly, please don't be so invested in rushing your changes. Let's see what some of the many other editors of this article have to say. Sorry, I must get back to work. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for ignoring the second half of my comment. My admiration for you has greatly increased since you decided to flaunt your "credentials". But to the point: sentences such as "They entered a school equipped with the most modern facilities and state-of-the-art laboratories", "received tremendous reviews and only add to the excellent educational experience." is clearly not appropriate, and to overlook such statements would suggest that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject. Giving vague statements like "I think these edits have gone too far" isn't really helpful. What exactly is "too far"? -Regancy42 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here from WP:Third opinion. First of all, please calm down and stop edit warring. I think Regancy42 is generally correct in saying that there is too much peacock writing in this article pre his edits. On the other hand his edits do cut out material that belongs in the article. So "a school equipped with the most modern facilities and state-of-the-art laboratories" is over the top, but "a school equipped with modern facilities and laboratories" and restoring the section head "The move to modern facilities" would be appropriate. The swimming pool vs mural controversy deserves mention, but less drama, etc. Bronx Science's accomplishments described in this article speak for themselves; excess puffery only diminishes their impact. I would suggest discussing Regancy42's edits section by section and coming up with language that preserves content but eliminates unneeded superlatives. --agr (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the two above statements. I don't see why the swimming pool issue should be mentioned. Students complaining about the facilities is trivial and does not really warrant any mention. Also, the source for that sentence leads to an error. -Regancy42 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The pool story is a major piece of school lore. I had no trouble finding it in the New York Times archive "Plans for Bronx Science's New Building Leave Swimmers High " By Howard M. Tuckner, October 30, 1956, which attributes concern to "the school's' principal, faculty and student body" and, in any case, it's generally considered good practice in editing articles (except for BLPs) where a link to a source is broken, to either try to fix it or tag it to give other editors a chance to fix it. --agr (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a pass at cutting out the more egregious puffery while trying not to remove significant content. --agr (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arnold, I went through your edits and thought you did a nice job of deleting puffery while keeping substance. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose removal of:

Students can speak to their teachers before and after class, or schedule a conference with their teachers during lunch or a free period. Students can also communicate with their teachers via e-mail, which is provided free of charge to the entire Bronx Science staff, faculty, and student body, through the school's computer network.

. It serves no real purpose, and is not even unique. That occurs in all schools. -Regancy42 (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Reg's proposed edit, deleting this para.: His reasons make sense. I also accept his apology. Bellagio99 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also question the relevance of the 3rd paragraph of 'move to modern facilities'. Describing 'rumours' which never came about and trivial information about dress codes. Should this really be included? -Regancy42 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to editors

I have been examining this article as a part of a request for assessment with the Schools Project. I strongly advise interested editors to create a separate list for the school's substantial notable alumni list. See List of New Trier High School alumni as an example if you are not sure. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and consensus has been that the list should remain here. The nature of this school is such that its distinguished alumni are integral to understanding the uniqueness of the school. I do not agree with making this change and would like to hear from other regular editors. I am reverting it until we see if there is consensus for the change. Tvoz/talk 03:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking this over, it is particularly unacceptable to remove the Nobel, Pulitzer, etc prize winning alumni from this article, and I object to removing any of this section at all. The readable prose is 21K, well below the guidelines for even featured articles, so there is no reason for this change and I have strong objections to it. Tvoz/talk 03:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved Alumni Section

I moved the alumni section to here List of Distinguished Bronx Science Alumni Please Help out referencing the article correctly and formatting that article correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see section above - I am reverting this change pending discussion. Will leave the separate article as is vfor now. Tvoz/talk 03:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The same has been done for Stuyvesant High School, which has the same split.

A peer review of this article as well as an assessment in a wikiproject said that this was called for, so let's discuss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to this peer review please? Tvoz/talk 06:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just posted it on the talk. Sorry for the poor formatting, the formatting didn't hold with the copy paste.

I just want to echo User:Tvoz's comments. No need for me to write more than she nicely expressed. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What? All that was said is that it needs to be discussed, tell me why it shouldn't be on another page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(indent) - per WP:SIZERULE, any article approaching 60k is a good candidate to be split. With the alumni list, the article is right up against 60k. Given that more of the article needs to be sourced, and that it has room for expansion, there is little reason to not split off the alumni into their own, well referenced list, with small expansion on each alum's description (should be no longer than 2 lines each). LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reasons

First of all, please read the section immediately above ("Suggestion to editors") for some of my reasons for not splitting this off. There is no consensus for this change, and until there is, please leave the article as it has been. The size guidelines for articles includes the concept of "readable prose", which is recommended (not required) to be around 34K. The readable prose for this article is only 21K, so it falls well under the guidelines for articles to even reach FA status, let alone for an article at this level. (If you don't know about readable prose and how to figure it, I'll get you the links.) If it is felt that this article is too long - which I do not necessarily agree with - there are other sections that editors here can discuss and consider shortening. But the notable alumni are important to understanding the school, and I object to their removal. And the removal of the details of the Nobel, Pulitzer and other prize winners is, frankly, absurd and shows a lack of understanding of the nature of this school and what information needs to be included here. So far I haven't heard any convincing reasons for making this change. Tvoz/talk 06:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Amending my comment immediately above: LonelyBeacon, WP:SIZERULE clearly says that it is talking about readable prose and that "< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division" . This article has only 21K of readable prose, and is therefore well below that recommendation so even by the standards that you were quoting, this is not necessary. (Here's the tool] for measuring readable prose.) I further think the separate article should be deleted as it is not needed at present. Tvoz/talk 06:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As a current student of this school. I feel that the stub that was written leading into the list adequately exemplifies the importance of the alumni to the school. The school stresses the number of Nobel laureates, over the laureates themselves. A questioning of any student that attends this school would yield that they are aware that seven Nobel laureates have attended the school, without knowing any names or accomplishments. The list within the article only serves to bulk up the article with unnecessary detail. --Iankap99 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian, we are writing an encyclopedia article to inform readers about the school - what the school stresses and what its current students know about its history is is completely irrelevant to our article. These specifics are important to teach readers who are interested in learning more about the school: if the current students learn something too, well, that's great. If you want to eliminate detail that is unnecessary for an encyclopedia article, I'd suggest starting with the clubs and course lists. Those lists serve no purpose to the general public and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My statement was made to show that the alumni names are information extra to the article. I agree with you about the course lists. The club list I disagree. Anyway, let us focus on the matter at hand. Look at Stuyvesant High School. In this FA, the alumni is in a list.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been editing Stuyvesant since 2006 - I'm well aware of how they handle their considerably longer list of Stuyvesant people. Considerably longer, and therefore more appropriate as a separate article than as a part of the main article. And please note that they do include the names and details of their Nobel laureates in the main article, and some of the more prominent or interesting alumni in the main article text in prose form as well. This is what I concurred elsewhere on this page could be a possible solution to what you seem to think is a problem. The solution of just removing everything about the alumni from here is what I object to. As for the clubs and courses - and sports teams - a prose section describing the school's approach to extracurriculars would be a big improvement, with a few examples of clubs and sports in prose form, and the same for courses. I see no need for long lists of these - again, this is an encyclopedia article for the general public, not a promo piece for the school or a catalog for the convenience of students. Tvoz/talk 03:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's talk about the other lists later. OK then, I am starting to see your point. I would be for keeping the nobel laureates and maybe a few other very significant ones on the main article. And then the list should be called, "Full List of ....." This requires however, a well developed paragraph for each person in the main article. I am changing my support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, that's some progress! If we go for a separated list for the alpha list that is now in the article (the ones currently listed after the prize winners, all of which are important and should stay in the main article), I don't think we'd need full paragraphs, as most of them are blue links to Wiki articles where the people are already well-described. At most a line or two of some identifying info is all that would be needed in the fork - as in Stuyvesant High School and List of Stuyvesant High School people. Tvoz/talk 05:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's reasonable. You're right in that some are needed. Two lines should suffice, not paragraphs. I think that this is a good agreement that nearly all can agree to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on moving notable alumni

Should the list of notable alumni be put into a separate list article (with appropriate redirect and summary), or should it remain in the article? (further comments are directly above this RFC) LonelyBeacon (talk)

Further to my comments above:

The short answer to why I oppose moving this material to a fork is that, unfortunately, people don't read forks, and by removing one of the main things that distinguishes this school from most others, we lose something that is too central to understanding it. I might agree to a longer article about the distinguished alumni - with longer descriptions of the truly notable among them as LonelyBeacon suggested - but then there would have to be a true summary section in the main article, that includes all of the current info about the prize winners and perhaps a shortened prose-style list of the more striking of the other notable alums with expanded descriptions in the fork. But to understand Science, you have to understand the scope of its alumni, which range from the physics Nobels to people who are quite far from the sciences like Stokely Carmichael, Richard Price, Dominic Chianese, and Bobby Darin, among others - all of whom are not what people expect when they think of this school, so should be included in the main article. In my opinion if all of this is removed from the main article, we are short-changing our readers and doing a disservice to the subject.

We can keep few important alumni on the main article, but to keep a giant list washes out these people in a list of people --Iankap99 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take another look at that "cutoff" for splitting - WP:SIZE seems to me to be crystal-clear that the 60K size guideline for splitting is for 60K of readable prose: as I have said repeatedly, and no one has responded to, this article has only 21K of readable prose, and therefore is well within the guidelines without removing anything. So honestly I think this whole issue is moot and the suggestion - while certainly well-meaning - really not necessary. Tvoz/talk 23:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Tvoz, with all due respect, I believe that he was asking for an opinion from someone besides those involved already. I think we should ask WP:3O. I'm not familiar with the system, can you please list it? --Iankap99 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you are asking here - we're in the middle of an RfC getting some outside comments, which the regular editors here can consider, so this is not the time for 3O. Let's let this play out first. Also, if you read what I wrote above, I've presented a possible way to handle the list part of this section. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support split - article is already quite lengthy, and will get substantially longer through expansion and referencing. This will make it an easier read, and will make it easier to open in some browsers. With the alumni list, it is just short of the 60k limit for being split. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

READABLE PROSE is 21 K. Not 60K. Please respond to this point, rather than repeating incorrect information.Tvoz/talk 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting What is and is not included as "readable prose"

"Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as:<sic>Tables and lists

Occasional exceptions

Two exceptions are lists <sic>. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. Most articles do not need to be excessively long, but when a long or very long article is unavoidable, its complexity should be minimized. Readability is still the key criterion.

Tvoz, while I see your point of view, I cannot agree that a strict interpretation is called for here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a strict interpretation of anything - I am merely trying to get this conversation off of the incorrect notion that this article is too long, or has reached a magical 60K cutoff. It is not too long, and is nowhere near 60K of readable prose. Tvoz/talk 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The statement that the article isn't too long is you opinion, do not mistake it as fact. I am not aware about the 60k cutoff. Only a couple of more author's opinions are needed for a consensus to be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not at all the way it works, Ian. This is just a request for comments, and we give it some time for other people to come and discuss, hopefully including people who regularly edit here and have some commitment to maintaining and improving the quality of the article. This RfC just started, and so far we have exactly one uninvolved commenter. There is no rush - nor is there some kind of mandatory action required. And this is not a vote - we'll see what editors think, and we'll discuss, and we'll try to come up with something that we all can live with. Please relax. And my point that the article is not too long is not my opinion, it is from Wikipedia guidelines on article size - read the relevant guidelines please, and try to understand them. Tvoz/talk 05:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC's, in general, run for 30 days, unless a fairly clear consensus is reached earlier. There is no clear consensus at this point. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is unreadable, length questions aside. On my computer, there are six screens of bare bullets to page through. That is not a description of the school at all. It is a trophy case and it detracts from the article.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a format problem, not a content problem. I do not see this on my screen, but I certainly believe you do on yours, so I'll attempt to fix it. Appreciate the input (though not particularly the "trophy case" comment), and hope you'll help figure out why it's happening on yours. Tvoz/talk 18:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is that there are 105 lines of bare bullets in a row. In my mind, that is a layout problem, per WP:Embedded list. Which was the thrust of my comment. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I am not understanding you, but what do you mean by "bare bullets"? I'm not seeing any bullets without text - can you point me to the section where you are experiencing the problem or clarify what you mean? Thanks Tvoz/talk 00:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he means bullets with only a couple of words. --Iankap99 (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Where specifically? Tvoz/talk 03:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader, it could very well be either the Facilities and resources, Representative Electives, Advanced Placement courses Publications, Events, "Extra-curricular activities", Clubs/Teams, or Notable alumni List. He is most likely referring to all. --Iankap99 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to all of the above, including, obviously, the 105 lines of bulleted items (many unlinked, almost all uncited) with no supporting prose I already referred to. Please, please, read the guidelines on embedding lists in articles, realize that what you have here is a serious layout problem, and fix it. The guidelines are really very clear. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support split - WP:Embedded list guidelines are more relevant here than article size. The article is not that long, but most of the article is bare, and long, lists of bullets. Almost all of these could (and really should) be re-written as interesting and informative prose. The alumni list is so long -- and so impressive -- that it is notable in its own right and is an excellent candidate for a list article. See featured article Stuyvesant High School for a great example of how to do this well. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support split - Keep the nobel laureates and a few important alumni on the main page --Iankap99 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose split the way it was done, as stated above. Length of this article is well within guidelines and not a problem. Can consider replacing the list with prose, but cannot support wholesale removal. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• I would support a summary of each section in the article, but IMO the list belongs as a list --Iankap99 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose split The article is not unduly long. More importantly, the sum of the parts is better than the whole. In particular, the lists of notables support the claims about the school.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean about the sum parts?--Iankap99 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I am very tired today and I meant to write just the opposite: The Whole is better than the sum of the parts: synergies. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me they are still teaching Aristotle at Science. Tvoz/talk 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal - Since there exists List of Bronx High School of Science Alumni, and editors are deleting links to it, and if this RFC ends up going against that article existing, there will need to be a formal filing at AFD to get rid of it, why don't we just go ahead and do that ... if there is really a major problem with that list extisting as a separate entity, will an interested party file it for AFD? This way, we only have to wait a week for an answer, and are more likely to generate more widespread input from the community. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for reasons LonelyBeacon stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been a month. I am going to delete the section and keep the separate article. If anyone has a problem with this, they should nominate the list of alumni for deletion, and take it to AFD since both the separate list and the in-article list cannot both exist. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For all of the reasons already enumerated, this is not ok. In fact both can co-exist if the separate article is fleshed out with more detail as it was supposed to be. I recommend you spend time doing that - and I will too, and hope others join in - and leave the section in this article as a summary section for that longer list article. Happens all the time, and this is not the place where I'm willing to make that cut. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking again at the separate list article, I see it is no longer just a duplication of this section, so even less reason to eliminate the section here. The separate article has been considerably expanded which is great - again, I will look at it and see if I can assist over there, and if this section can be shortened here, but I do not agree with removing it completely, nor do I think the list article needs to be eliminated. Tvoz/talk 21:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: you are now insisting that the entire list exist as a separate article, and that the entire list appear in the article? If that is the case, I fail to see the logic to this. I will be calling in some other editors to look at this. At this point I could care less as to how this goes, but they both can't stand. Community consensus should determine what happens.

Furthermore, when you say Happens all the time, could you provide one example of an article where a list of this magnitude is kept in full, and then copied verbatim into another article, where both are kept? I have never seen this (which means I might be missing something, but I would have to see it). Keeping a summary is what should happen, and is what did happen before you reverted, but keeping the entire list of 80 some-odd alumni is decidedly not a summary. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section of "Other Notable Alumni" Please restore on a case by case basis, but surely, the whole list does not belong.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

← LB, first, I didn't particularly think the separate list article should be created in the first place, as this one was well within size guidelines. But now that it has been created, and expanded, I don't necessarily object to it being there. However, your comment that the article is copied verbatim from here is decidedly incorrect - there is a great deal more in the separate list article now than in this section - details, pictures, etc. Which is how it should be if there is to be a separate fork. I agree with you that the two should not be identical, and if they were I would ask for the other article to be deleted. But they are not. I might agree that not every one of the people listed here needs to be here, but as long as we are in discussion, and have not reached consensus on this, I think the proper approach is to leave this article intact, not to just wholesale remove material (this is directed to Ian as well). Some long time editors here have not agreed with your position, so I think it would be more appropriate to actually have consensus on this before deciding to delete or severely limit a section that is important to any understanding of what this school is about. The problem to me with your earlier edit is that it was too drastic - for example, the Nobel, Pulitzer, etc prize winners shouldn't be relegated to a brief mention - these are major accomplishments of alumni that are a central piece in the history and reputation of the school. Forked-off articles generally are much less read than main articles, so I feel strongly that this article needs to have the significant names here. I'm reinstating the list as there isn't consensus to remove it, but I for one will look at paring it down some. I'd appreciate some patience on this. Tvoz/talk 22:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

LonelyBeacon is correct. Since there is a separate list article, the list here should be reduced to a summary with a link to the list. That's what WP:SS is all about. The list should *not* be here, as I have said repeatedly above, because it violates the MOS list guidelines at WP:EMBED. The fact that you continue to point to WP:SIZE, which is irrelevant, while ignoring WP:MOS, which is, is frustrating to those who are trying to help improve the article and maintain the quality standards of Wikipedia. If you have a case to make that the article as it is today warrants an exception to the MOS, make it. If not, please agree to edit the article so it complies. Otherwise, this begins to seem like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is surely not what you want to say. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, NH. You're right, LB was not making the size argument now, and my comment should have been clearer. The size argument was one of the main reasons given for the initial creation of that separate article, and what I was trying to say was that I had not been in favor of its creation (and the decimation of the section here) in the first place, at least in part because the size argument was specious due to the actual size of readable prose fitting well within guidelines. And yes, you made the point earlier about WP:EMBED, which is more valid. But the list of notable alumni is not just a list of links as embed is warning against - it's a group of people who play an important role in the history of the school, most of whom are themselves notable, and have their own wiki articles where of course a great deal of information about them will be found. The names of the more notable ones and some identifying words here in the main article is important, as I've said, because their scope is much broader than one might imagine alumni of what is thought of as a science-oriented school to be. And forks are not read - that's just a fact - so to understand this school it helps to understand who its alumni are, and at least some of that needs to be in the main article. I would like to see this article improved by eliminating or significantly downsizing some of the other lists that have been included, such as the sports or extra-curricular clubs, because to me they don't particularly belong in an encyclopedia article as they don't really add anything of significance to readers' understanding of the topic. Those, indeed, are just lists - and if someone were to eliminate them or turn them into prose you won't find me objecting. But the alumni are something else, and that's why I have continued to object to taking this approach. MOS is a guideline, and as a long-standing editor I'm well aware of the importance of maintaining the quality standards of the encyclopedia - I'm sure you weren't suggesting that I was not. As I said above, I am looking at this section with an eye to making changes that may satisfy some of the objections, but also satisfy the concerns of some of the regular editors here, and I'd appreciate some patience rather than wholesale removal. There's no rush here, nor any urgent problem that's destructive to the wiki, so let's relax a bit and not make a battle out of this. I am not saying I don't like it, I am saying that it doesn't serve the interests of our readers to go as far as was done in editing out this section, so I object. Tvoz/talk 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on a couple of points. First of all, the list of alumni is exactly the kind of list of links WP:EMBED refers to. It is very much like the example given there of a list of linked and notable buildings with no prose. Except that list is short. This one is enormous. MOS is a guideline with "occasional exceptions". I don't see why this would be one of them. It is like every other long list of people that properly belongs in a list article (I refer you again to the FA Stuyvesant High School). Your argument seems to be that people don't read forks and you want them to understand the alumni. They should certainly understand the alumni, but no one is going to read a list of 100+ names, either. You could easily summarize the importance of the alumni in prose. The truly interested can go look at the list. Surely that is why we have WP:EMBED to begin with. I see a list like this one and I dismiss the whole article as badly done. I suspect most people do, which is a shame, because this school deserves better. Again, if there is a compelling reason to substitute your own preference for the style guide developed by consensus, raise it. I just don't think "people won't read it if I follow the guideline" is very compelling. As for rushing to judgment, this has been under discussion for a month, has it not? What, in your view, would take to resolve it at this point? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I Oppose' the move, because Tvoz' argument is more compelling than Lonely and Nasty's. I find the article readable, and it is the impression of multifaceted notability that is most compelling. I also found the summary put in by Lonely as a place-holder to be too terse and unrepresentative. It distorts the nature of the school, and I say that as a friend of one of the persons named and as a locker neighbor of another.Bellagio99 (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I appreciate you honesty but this is also starting to sound like a violation of WP:PRESTIGE via WP:WEIGHT and WP:COI. While certainly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument for why one article should play follow the leader, the structure of these articles is based on what other editors have done for years, which creates something of a consensus as to how articles should look. I have not heard a good reason why this article should be different from others? LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Bellagio may have been referring to the four names you chose to leave in here in your rather draconian slash of the section - meaning that even though Bellagio personally knew two of the four who made your cut (which might have led him to see that collapsed section in a positive light) he still found the cut too severe and unrepresentative of the alumni. As for the essay WP:PRESTIGE, I think there are sufficient independent outside references to the high status of the school to justify any "boosterism" that essay was worried about. Again, I think a pared-down list here with the longer more expository list in the separate list article is acceptable, and I am going to see how the section here can be summarized in a more informative way, but again I ask for some patience on the part of the 2 or 3 of you who have objected to the article the way it in fact has been for years as the encyclopedia is not being damaged in any way at the moment by this, no BLP violations have been raised which would require immediate action, etc. Tvoz/talk 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am ceasing work on this article. I have decided that I have other work to do that will involve producing more and wasting less time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support split It's a long article with many lists and I'm glad I'm not one of the people reading it on a Blackberry or iPad. And the entries on this particular list? Sportscaster? Beauty queen? Scrabble champ? C'mon; if the list can't be pared to a splendid dozen or two then it should be moved entirely to the separate list article. If there is a need to say alumni are prominent in many fields, then this article should merely say so. There's surely no need to list those fields, much less give examples here of each. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

I listed this for peer review a while ago, sorry for not posting it before. I have stricken everything that has been rectified. Please strike through when you have completed the correction.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to submit it for a GA soon, and would like to clean it up before then. Any detailed comments to make this article as clean and top quality as possible would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Iankap99 User:Iankap99 00:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a long-time fan of Wolverines, so I will give you a few minutes. This article is a long way from being ready for WP:GAC.

• The most glaring issue to me is WP:V. I would need to see at least one inline citation per paragraph before I would take this article seriously.

• Also the sourcing for many of the lists is unclear.

• Convert any ALL CAPS titles to normal font.

• Eliminate deadlinks

• I must say that I am surprised not to see a Latin motto. I'm fairly certain that the english motto listed already is the only one --rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the name of the yearbook is suppose to be italicized.  Done

• The images are low quality, but this will not hold up GA. Just check around for better images and swap them in as you are able.

• WP:CAPTIONs should end in periods if they are complete sentences and should not if they are not.

• If you could merge some of the choppy paragraphs, the writing would seem more professional.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

--Iankap99 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Ian, and thanks Tony, as always, for taking a look at the article. I took the liberty of throwing in some bullets and itals just so we can more easily read what Tony said. I'll take a look at it all when I have a moment. Tvoz/talk 23:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposition to Remove Lists

Proposition to remove: (The sections will be summarized)

Representative Electives

Advanced Placement courses

Events

Clubs/Teams

--Iankap99 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with changing this to summaries, Ian - thanks for taking the initiative. Tvoz/talk 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved Holocaust Museum

Prior to my move, the Holocaust Museum was inserted in the midst of the flow of the history of the school. While the Museum is a laudable achievement, it seemed better placed in the discussion of the school's facilities. Bellagio99 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just Do It

Dear User:Brooklyn Ben. Please go ahead and add the documentation to this article that you suggest. You don't need anyone's permission or invitation. That's the way Wikipedia works. Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Very convenient selection of facts

Of the hundreds of articles I've read in Wikipedia about schools and universities, this takes the cake.

1) Stating a school ranking, you take the latest year, not one a previous one where it scored much higher. Its last ranking according to the reference given is not 4th, but 58th.

2) Having one admiring school that's not in the United States hardly justifies the WP:PEACOCK claim that this school has a "worldwide" reputation. Just because some one single school emulates another's education doesn't mean that overseas school has good judgment.

3) Reasoning that a school is "one of the best" on the strength of an award given to one teacher is not logical. To be best, in that respect, a school would have to have more teachers with those types of awards than other schools. The reference does not claim that this school has more award-winners than any others.

4) Checking the claim that the school has graduated more Nobel Laureates than any other, I found the reference was "page not found".

I checked some references as far as the first three paragraphs, and not a single one supported the claim made by the article. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your attitude here, and your accusations of "lying" and characterizations as "outrageous claims" in your nasty edit summaries, are unhelpful and particularly offensive to the hard-working editors on this article. You've been editing under this IP for all of two months - perhaps you have other identities here, but you haven't said so - so I'll somewhat reluctantly give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith, which it would be nice if you returned.

• Some of what you've pointed out has merit, and I thank you for highlighting it, although would have preferred it done in a more collegial manner. But you have overstated your complaints - I see where a few errors crept into the text, one which you didn't even identify: the one claiming the rank of 4th in 2008 which had been correctly documented as 33rd previously but another IP inserted that error some time ago and no one noticed it. The fact is that the only data we have from US News and World Reports are 2008 and 2009, so I have corrected this and included both Top 100 ranks in the text and notes. (Note, by the way, that the original citation url went to the 2008 ranking when it was placed there, and it is possible that no one looked up the 2009 rank - that is what is meant by assuming good faith.)
• As for "best" you;ll notice that the note says "for example". I'll add some other cites when I have a moment - but there are many reliable sources that have described Science as one of the best. More to the point, the listing of Science in the USNWR Top 100 Gold schools, later in the same sentence, is itself supporting evidence. The purpose of the note at the word "best" was to head off questions, like yours, about where we got the idea that anyone ever said that.
• The fact that Science has more Nobel laureates than any secondary school in the world is in fact accurate, but that particular cite doesn't say "world", so I've changed the text to "US" which it does say. But that link did not yield "page not found" when I clicked on it.
• As for the "worldwide reputation", you may not find this supported but I disagree - the Singapore minister of education lauded the school, and there are a number of other schools around the world that have emulated Science's curriculum and approach. Manila was cited, and Science's history section mentions several others that are now added to the notes. We'll be looking to add more citing on that point.
• The point about the wide range of interests of the students is important as people have long inferred from the name of the school that the students are mostly skewed to the sciences and math - that is not correct, and the text of the article supports this point in the lead by the varied list of electives, etc. - an introductory lead is supposed to act as a summary of the article.

Any help you might want to offer to improve this article would be appreciated, rather than peppering it with tags and insults. Please don't hesitate to do some research and see how you can help. Finally, as far as it being the worst example of anything (any school article, that is} you've read on Wikipedia, all I can guess is you haven't read very much. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 20:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, both in and outside of Wikipedia, schools are likely to stretch the truth or emphasize aspects of their performance that make them look better. This article, as I said, is absolutely the worst of many hundreds I've read, in that it misquoted or misinterpreted all three references that I checked.

Pal, you don't get to be the worst by accident. And if by some stretch of the imagination, those were innocent errors ... it does rather cast doubts on how exceptional the school is ... doesn't it now? Maybe exceptional at manipulating the truth?

"Worldwide" is WP:PEACOCK. It has no encyclopedic meaning. Can't be proved or disproved, ergo not encyclopedic.

I have no intention of researching this school. Other editors and I were involved in an extensive discussion with another school that resulted, as I remember, in their page being locked and users being banned. That discussion was subject to many kinds of angry lies and deceptions from that university.

What I will do is watch this page. And if other experienced editors come in with similar observations, and if it requires disciplinary measures to stop the abuse of Wikipedia, I will be involved. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Listen, I don't know who you are, but I don't appreciate being threatened with "disciplinary measures" or accused of "abuse" and especially not by someone who doesn't even own up to his identity or at least the account name he used or uses. My identity is known, and my edit history speaks for itself. You have what I believe to be the mistaken impression that somehow the school is writing this article. Well, I don't know who initially wrote the basic article years ago, and I only know who a couple of the other editors are so I can't vouch for anyone else. But I've been editing it since 2006, have made the most edits to it by a factor of three, and I am most certainly not the school, employed by the school, or in any way working for them, on their behalf, or for any associates of theirs. I have interest in and knowledge of the school because I, and my three siblings, graduated from there over 40 years ago, which I have never disguised, and I have done a good deal of research to support the edits I've made. As for errors - I didn't say they were innocent. Looking back at the article history I saw that another anonymous IP changed the 2008 ranking from the correct "33rd" to "4th" some time ago, and it appears to be straight-up vandalism, but no one noticed it when it happened, so it stood. Your snarky comment about whether the school is exceptional as a result of some errors casts doubt on whether you're actually here to improve the article or just to be nasty - no one constantly patrols most articles, so sometimes vandalism is missed. It's an unfortunate fact of life, but in no way suggests that anyone is "lying", other than the anonymous vandal. I don't at all think this article is perfect, but the way to improve it is to improve it, not to insult the editors from some kind of imagined perch of superiority. One last thing: there is a huge difference between "world class", a value judgment inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and "worldwide", an imprecise geographical description. "International" is what was meant by "worldwide", so that was a good suggestion. And by the way, you might show a little respect - I'm not your pal. Tvoz/talk 08:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Distinguished alumni in sortable table format

A while ago, I created a table of distinguished alumni that was probably created by the Alumni Association. I first found it in the school library and when I inquired about its authorship to the Alumni Association contact email, I just got the list in microsoft word format with just a few more entries, in December 2008. According to the metadata of the Word file, the author is "Barry Sussman" who is a member of the Board of Trustees [6], it was last saved by "Linda Klayman" who is the executive director of the Alumni Association, the revision number (the number of savings of the file including creation) is 13, it was created on 01/15/02 and it was last saved on 02/09/06.

I created a sortable wikitable with the information in the printed list and some people I found myself in NNDB. Obviously the list format especially with the sorting function has some advantages. It may be good to keep the article on distinguished alumni alongside a sortable list. The list is also worth comparing with the two already in existence on wikipedia, the one on the main article and the one in the alumni article. Somone noted on the talk page that the descriptions in it are "quirky" and it contains a lot of unnotable people. Overall, it's advantagous to have a sortable list of alumni but requires some time and work.

The sortable wikitable in its article: [7]
The original list at Wikimedia Commons: [8]

--Bxsstudent (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC) (I'm not a student anymore however)

I actually think the list "Other notable alumni and former students", needs to be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article about BXSci Alumni. The page goes on too long anyway, and if someone cares they will click the link. The list is currently unsorted and ugly. Bxsstudent's suggestion should be implemented on the other page. Drxenocide (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2