Talk:George School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quaker Schools[edit]

I took out the link to Category:Quakerism because I think that the link to List of Friends Schools and to Category:Quaker schools should be sufficient. Logophile 16:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. If someone wants to know about Quakerism, that doesn't mean he wants to know about GS. Th'above user is right that he'll click on Quaker Schools from Quakerism if he wants to know about Quaker Schools, and that will bring him to GS.--Signor Giuseppe 14:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article, I attended GS from 95-99 and I am pleased it has more then just a stub on Wikipedia, I will try and get some decent photos of George School next time I am there to upload into the article.

I'm delighted that my classmates (I also attended from '95-'99) are enjoying this article that I've worked so hard on. It is still a pity that Westtown's is longer, and that we provide a link to them, but not vice versa. Then again, it's a bigger school and was founded first, so I guess that's okay...--Signor Giuseppe 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it's not a competition. If you think the two articles need to be interlinked, then go edit `town's. The article's a good start, but there's still lots to be done. I'll add some suggestions below. --Ahc 12:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement's needed Sept 2006[edit]

Here are some thoughts about what could be added to improve the quailty of the article:

  • Images would be helpful, the school's logo and a campus scene (main building being the obvious choice).
  • Lengthen the history section some. The school's 100 years old, we should have more to say about it.
  • Notable alumni section. Many school's sites have one.
  • Someone should check the schools project pages for appropreite templates and categories to add.
  • Some basic school demographics (size, diversity stats, percentage of grads going to college).

Of getting some references in place would also be nice. Much of the current school information can probably be referenced to the GS site. History and such would probably require someone spending some time with Kingdon's book. --Ahc 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Curiously, although the mailing address is Newtown, most of the campus seems to actually be in Middletown township. Worth noting? The township line is just south of the Newtown bypass. More confusing is that the link for Newtown goes to Newtown Borough, not Newtown Township. The bits of campus not in Middletown are in Newtown Township. -- Olof

I'm on it.--Natcase 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni[edit]

I have removed Ennis Cosby (son of Bill Cosby) from the list of notable alumni, on the grounds that Ennis does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Frankly, he is known to the public only by virtue of his father's fame. That isn't enough to justify either a mention as a notable alumnus, or his own Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). —Aetheling 03:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (GS '66)[reply]

Ennis is notable unfortuntely because of his highly publicized murder. he does have his own wiki page, and if that is taken down for non-notability, then I think it's justifying removing him here.--Natcase 12:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that Mary Martin, the actress, attended GS. Can't find a cite for that, maybe its in Kingdon's book.
Mary Martin's children attended GS, but I believe she did not. Reference: [1]. —Aetheling 13:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has returned again, with the removal of Ennis Cosby and Kathleen Neal Cleaver. On the other hand there are a few alumni on the list who do not have Wikipedia entries of their own. Can we set a standard for this page that if you have a wikipedia page you get a "Notable Alumni" entry, if not, you don't. That would seem to me to be simplest.--Natcase (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the two without wp pages and little notability in my background research. The previous edit was in error, my apologies. According to WP:WPSCH/AG we need to prove alumni status and notability with references if no wp page exists. If the WP does exist, technically it must contain a referenced mention of alumni status (notability is assumed). -- Lucas20 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More than a decade on, and I have removed Cosby once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Faculty[edit]

If someone would like to argue the case that Eric Wolarsky qualifies as 'notable' for Wikipedia, perhaps they should spell his name correctly. -- Olof

Oldest co-educational high school?[edit]

Please cite this if you are going to claim this. For example, Punahou School was founded in 1841 and was co-educational from the start. AND all the way in Hawaii. --Kukini 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I just was following links from westtown, which was founded in 1799, which makes it the second oldest and thought, well, at least this this would be third oldest. Which it isn't, by far. Nice catch. leontes 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was your catch that helped me make this one. It seems that many high schools are making claims such as this on Wikipedia. --Kukini 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

lonestarblogger has been adding critiques of the school recently. While discussion of critiques made elsewhere are more than welcome (a lot of the current article has the self-satisfied tone of a booster piece), really the whole thing needs an NPOV makeover, andwe need more citations if critiques are going to be included. I edited lonestarblogger's discussion of Julian Bond, because I was easily able to find external references to his time at GS. I encourage critiquers to do the same in regards to racism, classism and homophobism critiques.--Natcase (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Julian Bond discussion belong in the "History" section, especially as the second paragraph of the entire article? I'm not trying to say that allegations of racism don't belong in the article (although they are rather dated since they are about the mid-1950s), just that they seem inappropriately placed in a position at the very top of the article, since it is by no means a defining part of GS or even GS history. Elcarmean (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it absolutely belongs in history, but perhaps we need a better introduction, and put history lower. And lonestarblogger's been reinstating critiques without citations again. aargh.--Natcase (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Repeated blanking of the page. Lonestarblogger, if you're out there, knock it off. I don't know what your deal is, but your legitimate critiques of the school are not framed properly for wikipedia, and simply replacing edited versions with your originals, instead of revising them in light of wikifying efforts, is not helpful. And your legitimate critiques of the boosterism of this wikipedia page are not properly dealt with by overbalancing in the opposite direction. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on externally published material, not original research. This is why citations are important. We are not all GS administration or rich alums. I don't want to pursue blocking, but I will pursue it if this keeps up. --Natcase (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point it is worth pursuing blocking and/or protection for this page. Since the blanking of the page and the vandalism/reverting to versions that have been reverted from is coming from multiple IP addresses in addition to Lonestarblogger, I think protection of the page would be a good idea. I also don't really know if the page needs the neutrality tag, as the only one (or ones) who seems to be interested in it doesn't discuss it, give any reason for it, or in anyway justify it. In fact the person (or people) doing the vandalism and blanking is (or are) the same as that put up the tag. If you feel the tag is necessary then by all means leave it up until your deadline passes, I won't take it down myself as I'm not the most unbiased source (being a graduate), although I too have my critiques of the schools and wouldn't allow boosterism if I saw it as being present. Elcarmean (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request for a semi-protected page--Natcase (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection denied, so I guess we're on our own. See text from the protection request and denial below:--Natcase (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting semi=protection for the article, which has had persistent vandalism and blanking from anonymous users. lonestarblogger and valkyrie88 have also made blanket reversions. Attempts to mediate and discuss have been met with silence. Discussion is still invited, as are responsible edits.--Natcase (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - This appears to be a simple content dispute which should be worked out on the article talk page. —Travistalk 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the person (or persons) who keep reverting and blanking have never visited the talk page despite repeated requests for over a week for him/her/them to do so. Please reconsider, or advise how to proceed with a content dispute where one party does not respond to requests to discuss on the talk page, and persists in blanking the page from anonymous accounts.--Natcase (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly useful denial, it seems pretty clear that the user didn't look into the dispute or the page much at all, or even read your request, since you clearly state that they don't come to the discussion page. I don't think calling it a content dispute is very fair either, since it's turned into repeated blanking of the page. Elcarmean (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality/Expert needed Issues[edit]

lonestarblogger has raised issues about the neutrality of the article, and has called for expert input, but has failed to discuss these issues here. In fairness, I will leave the tag up for a month (until April 15), to allow time for discussion of any neutrality disputes. After that point, if there has been no discussion, the tags will be removed. Fair enough?--Natcase (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke, no discussion, no tags. If you want to reinstate the tags, please discuss here... --Natcase (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone object to removing the "expert needed" tag. Not sure what it means... what specifically do we need expertise for? If there's something specific, please explain. If I have no explanation by January 30, I'll take the tag down.--Natcase (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read my one notes. I asked about this last year, and there was no response. Down it goes.--Natcase (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George School History[edit]

Someone has been removing whole paragraphs of history (regarding work camps and Julian Bond) as "irrelevant." It seems to me that the problem is not too much history but too little. What other "high points" would help fill out this section and not make the two passages in question seem so out of place... it certainly seemed out of place to jump from the school's founding to the Dodd gift with nothing in the intervening 115 years.--Natcase (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natcase, the Work Camps/Julian Bond is poorly placed. I do not believe a Intro section to a Quaker School needs historical references to Julian Bond's perception of the school as "racist." Quaker Schools in their existence reject ideas of racism, sexism, or bigotry of any kind. Whether or not Mr. Bond experienced racism or not is not the issue, the issue is the poor placement. If you want to keep it up, find another place, preferably in a "History" section.

It is in the history section, which needs expansion, not trimming. The Julian Bond case was in the national news as Mr Bond rose into prominent, so is significant. The section references that Mr Bond also found much of value at GS. If you object to the passage's tone, please revise with references, as has been done already, rather than simply deleting. If you think it is truly insignificant, please argue your case here. Please also sign your entries here. Thank you.--Natcase (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree more history is better not less, assuming accuracy of course. In fact perhaps it should be mostly history with basic discussion of much past that; the buzz-word shilling best left to the website or brochures; plain speak please. The history section is gettin on right on & at home on wikipedia though! -me 06:23utc 2019-01-04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.248.248 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on George School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on George School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George School. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_School&oldid=1207386974"