Talk:Taos High School

Should there be sources and citations?!

The article needs work and sources Taos High School has been a member of the New Mexico Activities Association since 1924.

The first boy's basketball team was organized for the 1923-1924 season. The first football team was organized in 1937.

It was a charter member of the Northern Rio Grande Conference established in 1947, competing for conference championships in football, boy's basketball, baseball and track. They remained members of the NRGC through the 1962-1963 school year.

Should this piece be allowed to be used in the article? it seems pointless.. The Taos Tigers won their first Northern Rio Grande Conference (NRGC) football championship in 1951, pummeling the Espanola Hornets 58-0. They won their first boy's basketball NRGC championship in 1948, also by defeating the Espanola Hornets. Their first baseball NRGC championship was during the 1951 season. Martinez07 (talk)

Facts are facts, The 1952 Don Fernando referred to the "pummeling of the Espanola Hornets 58-0" as the Taos Tigers won their first conference championship. Facts such as these are important in recognizing the accomplishments of those involved and participants on those teams and those teams they defeated as they achieved their goal. They deserve to be acknoweledged for this.--Taostiger (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pummeling" is considered a POV description and reads like a sports article. This is an encyclopedia and all descriptions should be neutral. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they do acknoweledged for this it just dosent belong on wikipedia!? or at least make it look good. but even so that was years ago put more recent awards or recent championships.

... ThomasSalazar _Chat?! 11:26 MT, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute

There is currently a content dispute over parts of this article. Instead of reverting back and forth, please discuss the article here. Aleta ^Sing 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Current unnecessary information in the article includes:

• • "The economy of the district is based on tourism, forestry, public sector agencies/industries and ranching. Taos is also an arty colony with more than 100 art galleries. This multi-cultural, richly diverse community produces resilient and creative students highly sought after major colleges and universities. (Also POV) The community is alive with history and culture. (POV) Taos is bordered by the Rio Grande and the Taos Plateau to the west, and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the north. Kit Carson Road begins at Paseo del Pueblo Sur near Taos Plaza and runs east, turning to U.S. Highway 64 as it heads towards Angel Fire. Most activity, centers around the Plaza, with museums, restaurants, hotels and Kit Carson Park in wasy walking distance.

Also, Taostiger continue to remove the unreferenced template, despite it being readded by Aleta, Mears man, and myself. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Mexico#Taos High School for editors from that project to come give input into the content dispute and to help with references, if they can. Aleta ^Sing 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

COMMUNITY INFORMATION

It is the choice of the students involved in this article to connect THEIR community to the high school. If they feel that the community is an important component to the school, then they should be allowed to provide information they would like to share about THEIR community.--Taostiger (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With edits & edit summaries like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 Taostiger seems to have major ownership issues. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Taostiger, I think the problem here is that other editors feel the community discussion strays to far from the actual subject of the article. Other articles more focussed on the community can be linked from this article, but some of the information is not really about the school itself. Aleta ^Sing 03:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is focused on the high school. Just because one paragraph out of several talking about the community in which the high school is located constitutes a different focus? Once again, the students don't separate the school from the community and someone else from somewhere else is telling them they have to?--Taostiger (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the community information that is unnecessary. That information belongs in the Taos, New Mexico article. When writing on WP, one should only talk about the actual subject in the article. Also, how do you explain sentences like " This multi-cultural, richly diverse community produces resilient and creative students highly sought after major colleges and universities." Where is your proof that these students are sought after by major colleges and universities? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Taostiger, if the information in the paragraph was relevant to the school, there wouldn't really be a problem with its inclusion. However, the entire paragraph (with the possible exception of the first sentence) is not about the school, but the community in which the school is located. It is fine to mention that the school is located in this community, but the rest of the information is not suitable for this page, although it may be appropriate for the Taos, New Mexico page. If people are interested in the community surrounding the school, they can click on the link to the Taos, New Mexico article and read about it there. —Mears man (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Los Alamos High School, "The strength of LAHS's academic record is largely attributed to the academic record of Los Alamos County which has among the most PhD's per capita in the United States".

Los Lunas High School, "Los Lunas High School is known throughout the area for its emphasis on Athletics, and more recently, on Performing Arts"

Santa Fe High School, "However, there is racial tension at the school because the more affluent white population has displaced the Hispanic and Native American families living in the city to some extent."

All three of the above mentioned articles do not have citations and are just as subjective as the sentence you've chosen to compare Taos High School. I'd like to believe that there is consistency, is there????? --Taostiger (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If that information is in those articles, then add a fact tag or remove blatant POV. We haven't read every single article dealing with schools in New Mexico. We only know what needs to be improved in this particular article. If you think there is incorrect information in other articles, then that's what makes WP great. You can edit it yourself and correct the information, which is what we are trying to do for this article. Also, using the argument that "well they did it, why can't I" doesn't really work on this site. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. When we came across the lack of any information in the Taos High School article, we then decided to share information on our community, our school history, athletics, etc. Having NEVER done anything like this before we contacted neighboring schools, Santa Fe HS, Los Alamos HS, who's profile we wanted to reflect and resemble. As a consequence, we've gotten deletions and lack of citations that have consumed the editors and what appears to be a target on Taos High School. Look at the other schools articles and you'll see they look VERY VERY similar to ours. We have no problem complying with WP standards but understand this is brand-spanking new and the delivery of comments or lack thereof has not been helpful in our efforts. --Taostiger (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, referring to people as idiots and leaving comments such as this doesn't help. We're not out to "hurt" the article. We're all here to improve the site. Once the page protection ends, I'll personally help you with any questions you might have about what is appropriate for an article. But edit warring is not going to help the situation. As of right now, consensus is to remove the community profile information. Also, we need to remove unverified claims such as the students being highly sought after by colleges since you haven't offered a source to back up that claim. I'll help you source the article if you want. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In reference to comments made, you're correct they are not helpful, but once again, when hard work and research were simply deleted without offering to assist became frustrating. Especially since the article model were neighborhing schools, and their information was left alone. Thus it became obvious to us we were singled out. We would absolutely accept your assistance. Once again the intent is not to delete the information we contributed, but that's been our experience throughout is when something is not appreciated it's deleted, just like that. I believe we can definately achieve an article that both meets the requirements of WP and respects the hard work of those who would like to contribute. Let me know what you need from me to get this to work. Thank you. --Taostiger (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I added where citation is needed in reference to the other articles you mentioned and the Santa Fe High School (New Mexico) article needs alot of work. This article wasn't being singled out, but when you post messages on user talk pages, people who watch those pages sometime become involved in the article that's discussed. That's why a few of us began editing this article at once. If you want to know how to source an article (where the fact tags have been added), read WP:CITE. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to go take a look at those articles and do the same. Thanks APK. Again, as APK pointed out it wasn't so much that we were singling out this article as it was we all noticed it around the same time, but were unaware of the other articles. If you come across any other articles that you feel could use improvement, feel free to list them here or improve on them yourself. —Mears man (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Because of continued edit warring, I have fully protected the article for two days. Please use this time to discuss potential improvements to the article here. Aleta ^Sing 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This works just fine. We as a group will also decide whether this is worth the counter-productivity that has arisen. If this is the case, we request that contributions made under this profile be permanently deleted from the article.--Taostiger (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Taostiger, are you a group of people acting under one name? Aleta ^Sing 04:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes --Taostiger (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that all edits are licensed under the GFDL and any request to delete them will not be granted since you agreed to those terms when the account was created. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You may chose to delete them anyways since they lack the citations you feel are needed, so it may be a moot point. You may end up with the article you seek. --Taostiger (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"the article you seek" - which is one that is properly sourced to verify claims and one that talks about the school and not the town. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is full of and saturated with the "need for citations" and will probably be removed without them, as the account holder I've decided not to reference them. I've communicated and shared the past 3 hours of exchange with this group to those who have contributed and we have decided to no longer participate and prolong this negative experience. At your convenience feel free to delete those paragraphs affected by this policy. Congratulations to you all, your mission has been accomplished. --Taostiger (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's your decision, but I've offered to help you with adding citations when the protection ends. Complaining about following WP standards is setting a bad example for students. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"As the account holder I've decided not to reference them." Why on earth not? Surely you see the value in providing references for your research? Aleta ^Sing 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not complaining it's been their experience and reality. You could learn alot from them, I sure did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taostiger (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless these students are awake at 12:21 A.M. with you, I'm not sure they're really dealing with the current discussion. Anyway, since you've stated you're not going to be involved in this article anymore, does anyone else have an issue with removing the community information, removing the POV statements, and correcting spelling errors? This is a no-brainer. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no problem with that at all. —Mears man (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with APK and Mears man. I think the large number of {{fact}} tags added all at once was a little much (not that I haven't done exactly that in the past), especially on non-controversial material. (I'm not saying that it needn't be sourced, it's just not time-critical, and it might have stepped a little into biting the newcomers. Just my opinion.) But otherwise, the edits by Aleta and APK have been justifiable. I have put a long note on User talk:Taostiger to try to encourage that group, even though they have found this experience unpleasant so far, to continue to contribute. Assuming good faith all around is crucial. -- Spireguy (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)