Talk:Troy High School (California)

message: Haha, it's funny to see Troy in Wikipedia.  The satellite image is cool. - Protokurios 02:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Haha, yeah. I saw schools like Stuyvesant and Andover had a nice page, and I wouldn't let us be shown up by them. Feel free to add to it!
Where did all the statistics come from (the rankings in California, etc)?
:Most came from the school profile thing, which Troy actually puts out itself, it might be better to have a third party source or so, though, too.  I'm not sure where the rankings came from, although Troy's site does have random statistics of Troy laying all over it. There's also this link C14 07:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troy 

message: I'm going to add another page about the Troy High School in Michigan. Michigan's THS has more National Merit Semifinalists than this school does, and has comparable standardized test scores, so it deserves an entry.
It does? "Troy High School had an incredible 22 National Merit Semifinalists, 2 Achievement Scholarship semifinalists& 9 commended students." from http://www.troycolts.org/troyhighannualreport.pdf. 39 > 22. And I believe the ACT is taken more in Michigan, so it makes sense that SAT scores are high (only motivated students take them). 129.59.32.153 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troy High School, Michigan 

message: There's nothing wrong with putting up a wikipedia page for your high school, and maybe it does give you the "warm fuzzies", but does it really need a long list of standardized testing and national merit scores here? To me, it seems like bragging. A few examples from recent years should suffice.
In fact, the whole article reads like it was copy/pasted from the school web site. Again, there's nothing wrong with being proud of your high school, but perhaps having a nice concise wikipedia page is also something to be proud of? Sayhar 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking as a non-student

message: There seems to be either vandalism or independent research in the introduction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.34.127 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Thanks for pointing it out. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst school?

message: I'd like to post a quick query on here: should Troy's NJROTC get its own article or be made as a section of Troy High School (California)?  I have seen a couple other JROTC articles created separately from the high school page, so I'm not quite sure as to what to do.  Right now, I'm leaning towards making it a section based on WP:N... Any comments?  Or is there a different policy for paramilitary programs that I'm unaware of?  Thanks. -- Havocrazy 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping it as part of Troy High School (California) would probably save a such-titled article from a speedy deletion. I'm not very sure on how far you can take "notability." Then again, many high school pages like these are just lists of achievements and programs. I'm having trouble locating such individual JROTC articles separate from their high school's pages. Can you name a few? And I doubt there is a different policy for paramilitary programs to this extent. If there is, then all pages would be individual or embedded. Then again, it could be worth a mention due to the visit to Nationals that happened in the 11-something month hiatus. MechStan (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NJROTC

message: PSST should not cannibalize the Troy High page with their history of board members. That is purely unethical. It is against Wikipedia policy to post information about an article topic of which you are affiliated. Should PSST want to post such, I suggest they start their own article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.33.3 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a lot of press coverage surrounding the matter at that time, but mention of the issue in mainstream media is becoming extremely rare a few months after the initial "hype".  I don't think the subject demonstrates long-term notability... +A.0u 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I was amused to see my edit reverted with the blithe and incorrect assertion that "1967 is the correct year" rather than 1964; if you would like to see some photos of my 1989 yearbook that says "25 years and it's worth it," I can supply them.  Or perhaps you might like to take a look at http://troyhigh.com/alumni.htm, which notes that the Class of 1967 is having a reunion... how exactly can a school have a CLASS OF 1967 if it didn't even OPEN until 1967? 24.68.138.157 05:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Founding 

message: Is there anyway to make the prerequisite table not stretch that far (thus adding a horizontal scrollbar to the bottom of the page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloomfilter (talk • contribs) 
:I have re-formatted the section with the correct syntax. +A.0u 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troy Tech Magnet Program Format 

message: I've deleted the controversy section; neither the Azia Kim item (see above) nor the asbestos concerns were sourced. References to each can be Googled, but as with the rationale above, it is a dubious proposition to suggest that either item, beyond temporary news coverage, demonstrates long-term notability. JNW (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trimmed down the Long section because it happened in 2005 when the student was 18 years old, meaning she is no longer a student (I went to Troy and absolutely refuse to believe the Oracle editor-in-chief would still be a student if she was 18 in 2005). Additionally, the sources given do not support all of the claims made. I have also renamed it to remove "-gate" controversy involving the student's name, as sources do not call it by that name. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Whatever happened to this case, anyways? Did Ann Long graduate from Troy in 2005 and the whole thing was just forgotten? The paragraph seems incomplete without this information. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm 99.9% sure that it was D'Amelia who initiated the disciplinary action against Long, but once again the sources given only establish a "she said, he said" scenario. Inclusion of his name over "Troy administration" does not enhance the article context, as the principal and FJUHSD supported the disciplinary action. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed briefly at WP:BLP/N and above. BLP explicitly requires things to be well sourced. This is not well sourced, as most sources say it is the administration as a body, not this one person who were at fault. Note that, one source specifically uses the term 'allegedly' which means they are not sufficiently confident that the claim is true. A second source does not mention D'Amelia at all. The third source mentions both D'Amelia and Cerrutti. Importantly none of these sources, nor even Long's claim really establish that D'Amelia was the primary person behind this, even if it is true he/she delivered the ultimatum that doesn't mean he/she was the person leading action perhaps simply the person given the responsibility to give the ultimatum. Ergo this is not acceptably sourced. The only thing we that is perhaps verifiable is that Long made the claim that D'Amelia delivered the ultimatum, but this doesn't seem particularly relevant to the controversy and is not what you're adding to the article. This is a very serious matter so please do not add it back until until a consensus is reached. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The two articles from the ACLU doesn't mention her name, and according to the sources this was an administrative action so her name is not relevant.  I removed her name per  WP:BLP policy: "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Jmundo 06:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Would you kindly read what I said earlier? The sources only establish that Long made the allegation that D'amelia gave the final ultimatum. That is quite a different thing from the allegation presented in the version I reverted that he/she 'lead' the adminsitration in that matter. And has already been explained by 4 people including me, all sources concur that it was the administration that was at fault, not D'amelia in particular. The only person who appears to single out D'amelia is Long. But this in itself is not sufficient to warrant inclusion because Long's claims are not inherently notable. What is notable is the wider controversy as evidenced by the sources, all of which as I and others have said several times blame the administration not D'Amelia in particular. BTW, Roylucier, if you went to Troy High School, your apparent inability to count doesn't say much for their mathematics teaching. Only you and Whippletheduck have supported the inclusion of this information here. 1+1=2 not 4. It appears an anon may have been involved in including the information in the article but they have made no attempts to discuss this and given the anon is also responsible for this  completely unsourced potentially libellious claim (please though, no irrelevant discussion of the sexuality of the vice principal), I think we can safely ignore this anon. And even if you do count this anon, that's only 3, still not 4. Incidentally, see WP:NOVOTE Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Not being part of the discussion, I tried to reword it after reading the general commentary about it and coming in cold turkey with few preconceived notions. I kept the first two controversies and eliminated subtitles. What happened in the student editor case? Or has it been resolved yet? Maybe needs ONE more sentence. The slurs were mere "activities", unsupported by anyone (not really supposed to be taping people. Funny that didn't come up!  )  Anyway, like kids getting detention or something. Pretty low level. Different if there were multiple sides and contentions, etc. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: The only source that claims Long would be fired as editor "to make an example out of her" is this one, which states:
Nowhere does it say D'Amelia wanted to make an example out of her; this is Long's summary of what D'Amelia allegedly told her—literally a "she said he said" scenario. Additionally, none of the sources given, as well as these: , , , , , explicitly says that D'Amelia initiated the disciplinary action; again, these were Long's claims. Per WP:BLP,which applies to any Wikipedia article, not just biographical ones,
I am therefore removing all claims that D'Amelia initiated the discipline against Long, and that the action against her was intended "to make an example out of her." This is synthesis/OR derived from hearsay and does not belong, especially when dealing with living persons who are not well-known public figures. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 99.9% sure that it was D'Amelia who initiated the disciplinary action against Long, but once again the sources given only establish a "she said, he said" scenario. Inclusion of his name over "Troy administration" does not enhance the article context, as the principal and FJUHSD supported the disciplinary action. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed briefly at WP:BLP/N and above. BLP explicitly requires things to be well sourced. This is not well sourced, as most sources say it is the administration as a body, not this one person who were at fault. Note that, one source specifically uses the term 'allegedly' which means they are not sufficiently confident that the claim is true. A second source does not mention D'Amelia at all. The third source mentions both D'Amelia and Cerrutti. Importantly none of these sources, nor even Long's claim really establish that D'Amelia was the primary person behind this, even if it is true he/she delivered the ultimatum that doesn't mean he/she was the person leading action perhaps simply the person given the responsibility to give the ultimatum. Ergo this is not acceptably sourced. The only thing we that is perhaps verifiable is that Long made the claim that D'Amelia delivered the ultimatum, but this doesn't seem particularly relevant to the controversy and is not what you're adding to the article. This is a very serious matter so please do not add it back until until a consensus is reached. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The two articles from the ACLU doesn't mention her name, and according to the sources this was an administrative action so her name is not relevant.  I removed her name per  WP:BLP policy: "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Jmundo 06:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Would you kindly read what I said earlier? The sources only establish that Long made the allegation that D'amelia gave the final ultimatum. That is quite a different thing from the allegation presented in the version I reverted that he/she 'lead' the adminsitration in that matter. And has already been explained by 4 people including me, all sources concur that it was the administration that was at fault, not D'amelia in particular. The only person who appears to single out D'amelia is Long. But this in itself is not sufficient to warrant inclusion because Long's claims are not inherently notable. What is notable is the wider controversy as evidenced by the sources, all of which as I and others have said several times blame the administration not D'Amelia in particular. BTW, Roylucier, if you went to Troy High School, your apparent inability to count doesn't say much for their mathematics teaching. Only you and Whippletheduck have supported the inclusion of this information here. 1+1=2 not 4. It appears an anon may have been involved in including the information in the article but they have made no attempts to discuss this and given the anon is also responsible for this  completely unsourced potentially libellious claim (please though, no irrelevant discussion of the sexuality of the vice principal), I think we can safely ignore this anon. And even if you do count this anon, that's only 3, still not 4. Incidentally, see WP:NOVOTE Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Not being part of the discussion, I tried to reword it after reading the general commentary about it and coming in cold turkey with few preconceived notions. I kept the first two controversies and eliminated subtitles. What happened in the student editor case? Or has it been resolved yet? Maybe needs ONE more sentence. The slurs were mere "activities", unsupported by anyone (not really supposed to be taping people. Funny that didn't come up!  )  Anyway, like kids getting detention or something. Pretty low level. Different if there were multiple sides and contentions, etc. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "to make an example out of her"

message: Anything here that is possibly defamatory and is not well sourced should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed one comment as defamatory. All other defamatory content is intertwined with on-topic discussion, and I don't want to walk the line of appropriately versus inappropriately editing other people's talk page comments. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] applies to this page also 

message: Alma maters are inherently copyrighted and are not allowed on Wikipedia unless express permission is given by the copyright holder. I would ask that the Alma mater section be removed from this article. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Gain consensus before adding the  template to the page.  If there are no objections after a short period of time, feel free to re-add it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I do not object to Wadester16's proposal. The protection is due to BLP concerns on a different section (see above). KuyaBriBriTalk 03:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Last time I checked, copy vios sit much higher on the totem pole than wiki consensus. An alma mater is a written work, and like all written works, is copyrighted by default unless the rights are given up by the author or the work is in the public domain. I see no evidence of either here. Therefore, delete until said license is found. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alma mater 

message: The names of individuals, minor or adult, don't need to be mentioned for a single event; see BLP: Presumption in favor of privacy. We wouldn't mention the name of the coach who led a basketball team to state championships. By the same token, listing faculty involved in a decision isn't terribly important.
Since BLP is such an important issue, objections to this would be best handled at the BLP noticeboard. tedder (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP and the need to mention names 

message: Just posting this here so it can't be said an attempt was made to deal with the edit warring by Radr4life.  Basically, Radr, you need to provide source about this lawsuit, and even then I don't think it is notable enough to warrant inclusion.  Danparker89 (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial slurs by school admins issue.  

message: It seems that I have been fighting the wrong battle. My bad.Csamantello (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Edit request on 5 April 2013 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Troy High School (California). 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/20070525023330/http://fjuhsd.k12.ca.us:80/pages/bond/4%20-%20Bond%20Meets%20O.C.%20Taxpayers%20Assn%20Criteria.htm to http://www.fjuhsd.k12.ca.us/pages/bond/4%20-%20Bond%20Meets%20O.C.%20Taxpayers%20Assn%20Criteria.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Troy High School (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212164646/http://fjuhsd.k12.ca.us/pages/sarc/SARCTRHS0203.htm to http://fjuhsd.k12.ca.us/pages/sarc/SARCTRHS0203.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi everyone. I am considering removing the controversy section. The list is getting too big and can be considered defamatory. If you are in support of or oppose this idea, please reply here and state why. CrispyCream27 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of controversy section 

message: Those of us who lived through these controversies recognize the import of bequeathing these stories to future Troy students.  Many of us came to Troy expecting to encounter infallible faculty--for how could Troy have amassed its reputation without them?  What we found was that our teachers, administrators, and, at times, our superintendents placed the interests of themselves and the school's reputation above the needs of students.  To hide these stories from future, current, and past students would be to actively ignore the rich history of Troy High, a history that includes our lowest points as well as our highest.  This is not defamation; Troy's staff is largely superb.  It is education: we deserve to have access to Troy's successes and failures alike, for we learn from our mistakes and can hold ourselves to higher Warrior standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7680:1200:5D05:E1C7:357:E910 (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of controversy section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion