Talk:Stuyvesant High School/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Stuyvesant High School. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This page contains archived material from Talk:Stuyvesant High School. It was archived on March 31, 2006.

the most students

though correct in phraseology, the sentence "sending the most students to..." could be misleading. perhaps it would be good to add some term such as "abosolute" to indicate "most" in the absolute numbers sense, not just the highest numbers, for the sake of clarity.--gwc 04:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

AP courses

I somehow doubt that there are 55 AP courses offered at Stuyvesant, seeing as there are only 31 AP tests.

At Stuyvesant we have quite a few courses that are either at or beyond the level of the AP, therefore I think it is safe to say 55 AP courses [1]abulanov 02:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just because there are classes which cover material at a level beyond the AP exam does not make them AP courses. And just because a group which supports the school has that claim on their website, it does not make it true.

Regarding "the top school in the city," I've never seen any evidence either, but it's a popular credit given to the school. I took issue with putting it on this page as well, since I'm a Hunter College High School alum, but didn't want my bias to show by removing it. :) Maybe we could say "many New Yorkers consider Stuyvesant to be the top HS in NYC, but students at other magnet schools might disagree." --zandperl 20:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or we could say "Stuyvesant High School is a top school". I definitely agree with you that Hunter and Stuy are on par with each other. I'm a Stuy grad, btw. -A1111 00:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just made a similar change to the Bronx Science page, since we've done this to Stuy. Brooklyn Tech doesn't claim that status, so we're OK there. :-) --RossPatterson 23:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC), Stuyvesant '76

Brooklyn Tech has more well rounded students. They have consistantly produced student who do not lack social graces; unlike Stuyvesant. 68.175.26.54 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

68.175.26.54, Stop using bold type! Niffweed17 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. You are truly a stellar example of the type of secure and well rounded alumni produced by Brooklyn Tech. ;-) --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 11:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chong tsi con ri ku. Ben Tsai con luc ke yang tse mao sen fung. 205.188.117.5 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

hunter vandalism

why is it that all the vandalism i see on this page deals with hunter? do hunter student feel the need to vandalize this page because of some inferiority complex? i don't see any stuy kids vandalizing the hunter page yet there are daily vandalism of the stuy page by hunter. i also see that a good chunk of the hunter page is devoted to bashing stuy - again very curious as it seems they are more interested in bashing stuy then writing something about their own school whose page does not even come close to stuy's again is it an inferiority complex to hunter student why don't you grow up and realize that vandalizing stuy's page is not going to made hunter any better known if anything it makes you look cheap
could you please stop --abulanov 04:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it's not a inferiority complex; it's actually much simpler. we're just very VERY jealous of all the publicity and FUNDING you guys get.--gwc 04:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic comment. On the one hand Stuyvesant does receive a great deal of publicity, on the other hand Stuyvesant receives less funding per student from the city than the average NYC public high school. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true at all, you're discounting the fact that Stuyvesant has a 50 million dollar building. Most schools don't get 50 million in funding to offset this. 68.175.26.54 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Page getting too long

While the zeal for Wikipedia is all well and good, this article has gone well beyond the recommended 32KB limit. If you want to add more alumni, I would suggest starting a new wiki page on "List of Stuyvesant alumni" and moving the alumni list there instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorstratton (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 January 2005

A1111 has now done that (see List of Stuyvesant High School people). As a result, I've just moved all the alumni conversations from this page to Talk:List of Stuyvesant High School people. RossPatterson 17:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS 811 actually P721M

I cannot find any evidence at all to suggest PS 811 might be located at Stuyvesant's campus, 345 Chambers Street 10282. [2] Furthermore, I've never heard of a PS 811 while at Stuyvesant (2000 alum), nor have I seen any indication that there might be a PS 811 when revisiting the campus post-graduation. --BenjaminTsai 14:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess maybe they moved it since then? Because it was definitely located in the school at some point, I remember the kids well and several teachers mentioned them while I was there (class of '98). - Lampbane

The new building also houses P.S. 811, a school for disabled students, and wheelchair-bound students can sometimes be seen throughout the building. Some teachers remark on the unusual juxtaposition of the gifted with the disabled.

Are the two really orthogonal? Surely a proportion of the "gifted" are disabled, and vice versa. Or does "disabled" here really mean "learning-disabled," in which case the juxtaposition would make more sense? The mention of "wheelchair-bound" implies physical disability to me, and if that is the case, the comparison seems slightly offensive to me.

I really don't know what the actual situation with P.S. 811 is, but I feel it should be clarified in the above paragraph so that it is not implied that wheelchair-bound students cannot be gifted and gifted students cannot be wheelchair-bound.

(Also, is P.S. 811 an elementary school? As I remember, the P.S. prefix in New York City is used only for primary school. Perhaps this should be clarified, i.e. "also houses P.S. 811, an elementary school for...") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.49.221 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 February 2005

Feel free to make whatever changes you think are necessary. A1111 22:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would, but as I said I don't actually know whether P.S. 811 is for learning-disabled students or for physically-disabled students, or both. And a casual Googling didn't leave me any wiser. Perhaps someone who's familiar with the situation will step in?

PS 811 is for the learning-disabled, if you're willing to take an alumnus' memory as evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.222.218 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 August 2005

Agreed, also from an alumnus. The PS 811 students (though I never knew what the school was called) have disabilities that would seem to be both physical and mental. This should perhaps be clarified, as the implication of intellectual inferiority based on physical disability WOULD be highly offensive - however, in this case, the students in question always appeared to have handicaps that went far beyond the strictly physical.User:Gradient 16:50, 16 Sep 2005

Everyone, it's not "PS. 811." P.S.(number) stands for "Public school" and refers to elementary schools. P(number) refers to a special needs school (District 75) and has kids anywhere from 5-21. The school inside stuy had mostly high-school age kids. It's P721M you're talking about. Go to nycenet.edu and look at district 75. PROOF: http://insideschools.org/fs/school_profile_d75.php?id=12

and http://schools.nycenet.edu/d75/P721M/offsite.htm P721M has a site at stuy. Don't you alumns remember all of them, especially during fire drill when they had special wheelchair areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.161.41 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 January 2006

Stuyvesant is actually the top school in the city.

It is second in the country to Thomas Jefferson in SAT's, Ap's, and Ivy League placement, all to Thomas Jefferson in Virginia. 68.174.143.165

Can you post some citations for that? As a Fairfax County resident and a former Stuyvesant student, I'd love to know which school leads in the standings. RossPatterson 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Stuyvesant '76

I doesnt seem to be in this list of the top 100 public schools in the USA produced by MSNBC --Celendin 12:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

it was not a candidate in that list since they eliminate selective-admission high schools abulanov 10:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Prepreview.com seems to site that Stuyvesant is number 2 is in SATs. Found on Google's cache.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.137.189 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 January 2006

SAT's alone don't make a top school 205.188.116.136 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD notice

Template:Stuyvesant_High_School_infobox and Template:Stuyvesant_High_School_infobox2]] have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion here. If deleted, the template will be copied into the article beforehand. -Splash 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It would appear the deletion happened. The page looks normal, and I don't think the template was being used anywhere else, so I guess all is well. RossPatterson 13:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Winners

How many Nobel Prize winners have attended Stuyvesant? I would think that there would be a few, yet I don't see a list of them. PersonDude 02:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is over the generally-accepted limit on size, so all the notable alumni were moved to a separate page, List of Stuyvesant High School people. At last count, Stuyvesant had four Nobel laureates: Roald Hoffmann '54 (Chemistry 1981), Joshua Lederberg '41 (Medicine 1958), Richard Axel '63 (Medicine 2004), and Robert Fogel '44 (Economics 1993). I've updated this page and the alumni page to highlight them. RossPatterson 02:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Robert Fogel didn't win a Nobel prize. He won a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. They sound similar, but are not quite the same thing. 68.161.13.188 22:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

True, because there isn't a Nobel Prize in Ecomonics, despite what it's popularly called. I've propagated the change in terms to the other mention of Fogel. RossPatterson 03:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bronx High School of Science counts seven Nobel Prize winners among its graduates, more than any other secondary school in the world. It also has five Pulitzer Prize-winning graduates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepher Li (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 December 2005 That's more than Stuyvesant High School and Brooklyn Technical High School combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.240.3 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 December 2005

I'm not sure the passage above belongs in the talk section here. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous Assertion

"While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have argued [2] [3] that, like the SAT and other standardized exams, the exam may be biased against African and Hispanic Americans. For further information, see the articles on Stuyvesant's student body and standardized testing."

Do not understand the point of this paragraph, as it seems a bizarre assertion. Some activist groups claim many things, as they wish for more funding. This assertion seems as Asian students have no problems with the exam! How can--Zxcvbnm 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC) a student from Hong Kong that came over to America at nine years old with no English language skills have an advantage over American born African and Hispanic students? I vote for deletion of this paragraph, as common sense suggests there are other reasons for these failings other than inherent biases in the test itself.

Simply put a student from Hong Kong already speaks English being that it is an English speaking city (it was a British colony until 1997), so please learn your history. African American's as well as Hispanic American's are typically at an economic as well as an educational disadvantage while being raised in the inner city. Bobbydoop 09:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many potential reasons for why African Americans and Hispanic Americans are under-represented within the schools. However it is clear from the success of new legal and illegal Asian American immigrants that the constraining factor is not an issue of economics. In any event, I have removed the paragraph as the footnotes do not exist and furthermore is only the assertions of one small group. --BenjaminTsai 00:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

These potential reason's must not be underplayed, removing it undermines the very fact that they exist. 24.239.149.9 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no potential reason, there is no direct proof therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia. The only reason minorities would not be accepted is because of a lower level of education BEFOREHAND, not because of biased testing.--Zxcvbnm 16:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Testing bias is what is stated in the article, as well as the test being designed for a certain section of society. 24.239.149.9 16:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahem Bobbydoop, most of the Chinese coming from Hong Kong to the states do not speak English. Learn your history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.169.194 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 December 2005

Although it is stated, it is not proven. That's like an article stating "aliens exist" without proof and you putting it in the aliens article--Zxcvbnm 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That is most likely because they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS from China. English has been the official language of hong kong for years. Cantonese was added afterwards BOZO! [4] 68.175.26.54 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also restated in the student body article, why dont you look there and add whatever you need.--Zxcvbnm 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a recent study has showned that the admissions test for Stuy is largely skewed towards the math section. The Times reports on this oddity. And, the trend is also that Asians do better in mathematics. Math around the world is math, English is something else. --Jnguy 03:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Con cac, Cho de! Jngu! There is a trend that Asian men have very small penis as well! http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:edzj4HyNhDcJ:www.penissizedebate.com/page48_penissize-race.htm+asian+small+penis&hl=en Where is your sources for this racial issue! Asians in some area's do better in math and aren't successful worldwide. There are over 100 million asians that can't read than any other nation in the world! So please with all that! 68.175.26.54 20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting incredibly off topic, but if you insist: Penis size. Also, although it is a sterotype, it exist for a reason. SAT statistics Of course, there is no acurate way to measure all of this. In addition, we are talking about kids that take the specialized highschool exam, not kids on the countryside of China.

no where do you state that this is only for individuals taking the test?? So lets move on and focus on stuy not small penis asian men or flat chested asian women. 205.188.116.136 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of MLK, yet another article has surfaced. Gotham Gazette --Jnguy 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Gotham Gazette article, entitled "Segregated Schools: Shame of The City" doesn't accuse Stuyvesant of having any sort of bias whatsoever. Rather, it uses Stuyvesant's current student body to demonstrate that the rest of the New York City school system doesn't prepare students well enough. It's a very interesting thesis, but it isn't related to the accusations of bias in the Stuyvesant admission process and I don't think it should influence any decision made on this NPOV dispute. RossPatterson 11:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have requested assistance from the mediation cabal to help resolve this issue. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 16:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

see Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School#Mediation --Fasten 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The edits of 24.239.149.9 are consistently biased against Stuyvesant High School. The individual adds unsubstantiated claims regarding the present danger of asbestos to the article and also insists on a more POVized framing of words regarding ACORN and John Lindsay. The individual also insists on unnecessary and clunky changes to the wordings of the article for his own mysterious agenda (ex. "admission to Stuyvesant has been the highest of the schools since its relocation to its present Battery Park City campus" vs "admission to Stuyvesant since its relocation to its Battery Park City campus has been the highest thus far of the schools"). --BenjaminTsai 21:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues

Admission requirement: Unresolved
See also: Unresolved
Asbestos: Unresolved
ACORN/Lindsay: Resolved

Admissions requirement

These additions aren't biased, but rather fact stating. With the new admissions standards based on scores and the 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice systems they are in fact not biased. 24.239.149.9 22:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Which additions are you talking about specifically? If we're considering test scores, then a prospective student wishing to enroll into Stuyvesant High School needs to score higher than if he wishes to enroll into another school using the SSHSAT test. There is no need to insert the phrase "thus far". --BenjaminTsai 22:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thus far is necessary Benny boy, simply because it is no longer the person who needs to score highest, but rather a combination of a high score and placement of first choice second choice and third choice. Please read and learn. http://www.nycenet.edu/Offices/StudentEnroll/HSAdmissions/hsProcess/Specialadm/special.htm 24.239.149.9 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thus far is not necessary. Even with the new system, in practice a student who's first choice is Stuyvesant High School still needs to score higher in order to be ranked high enough on the priority list to be enrolled than if his first choice was another school. --BenjaminTsai 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you even look at the provided link? http://www.nycenet.edu/Offices/StudentEnroll/HSAdmissions/hsProcess/Specialadm/special.htm 24.239.149.9 23:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did. "The results of the SHSAT are ordered from the highest score to the lowest score. The student with the highest score will be placed in the school/program of his/her first choice. Going down the list from the highest score each student, in turn, is placed in his/her highest prioritized school in which seats are still available" [5]. This is consistent with my previous response. --BenjaminTsai 23:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thus far is quite necessary, due to the high potential for change in what is deemed to be the highest score. 68.175.26.54 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Thus far" is not necessary, if the situation does change then the article can be modified to reflect the new situation. As it is, the idea that there is "high potential" for change is pure speculation. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose replacing Exhibit 6 with the following sentence: The test score needed for admission into Stuyvesant since its relocation to its present campus has historically been the highest of the SSHSAT schools. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I counter propose that it stays as it is, since you've provided for no evidence that it will continue to be the highest with the admissions policy based on choice preference and scores. 152.163.100.199 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal: Since it's relocation to the current campus, Stuyvesant has "historically been the most sought-after high school in the city" [6]. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agreed on the previous proposal, I won't budge on this one. Thus far is necessary. It gives credit to the high scores achieved, but allows for future change. 24.239.149.9 04:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your stance is unjustified. Imagined if I insisted on modifying Murry Bergtraum High School also ranks along side Stuyvesant High School, the Bronx High School of Science, and Brooklyn Technical High School in terms of popularity. to Murry Bergtraum High School also ranks along side Stuyvesant High School, the Bronx High School of Science, and Brooklyn Technical High School thus far in terms of popularity simply because I feel there is "high potential for change" and that it is needed because it "allows for future change". Please reconsider your unilateral stance. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You're logic and reasoning isn't clear. Murry Bergtraum can be compared to Stuyvesant in only the case that they are schools in the same area. Stuy, Tech, and Science have been linked as the only science specialized schools for over 40 years. People don't mention one without the other 3. They are intertwined as being the magnet schools of NYC. The addition of new magnet schools along with the newer admission policy can make for Stuyvesant to no longer be the top choice of many students regardless of score. 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice play a very large role now. The article barely mentions the other schools. IF you'd like to expand on the new admissions policy which would be almost another paragraph, than we could probably agree on the removal of thus far. In a short sentence as it is now, the thus far is necessary. 24.239.149.9 10:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, I'm merely pointing out that by your logic we should be inserting "thus far" everywhere to make for the possibility that the future state could change. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As an addendum, people have been filling in their first, second, and third choice for at least a decade, if not much longer. The only thing that's really changed is now instead of having a fixed cut-off score, there is in practice a floating cut-off score. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As such, with a floating cut off score the future state can change. So thus far is necessary. 24.239.149.9 06:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying that something has historically been the highest or most sought after is not saying that it will continue and always be the highest or most sought after. "Thus far" is unnecessary. Allow me to also point out that even before the new admission process, the cut off score was still changed based on demand. The new process changes nothing from this perspective. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 07:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

New Info as well as more proof Define sought after or most sought? There are many different criterea for this. Stuyvesant if someeone were looking to go to a school that has a 100% math state requirements, they'd go to Townsend Harris not Stuyvesant. If they wanted the best reading scores they'd go to Townsend Harris. So what defines most sought??

- "Parents are given report cards on high schools" -- Stuyvesant ranks among the top high schools in New York City in Board of Education reports to parents. In terms of SAT scores, Stuyvesant students on average scores 1290; Bronx Science 1208; Townsend Harris 1121; Staten Island Technical 1057; and Brooklyn Technical 1019. These round out the top five. As for math scores, 99.2% of Stuyvesant students meet minimum state test standards while 99.7% of Bronx Science and 100.0% of Townsend Harris students do. In reading, 96.4% of Stuyvesant students meet the minimal level while 96.6% of Bronx Science and 99.2% of Townsend Harris students do.The New York Times (07-Mar-1995) [7]

If someone wanted to go to a specialized High School that gives them a higher chance of getting into Harvard, they'd choose Bronx Science at this point. [8] I'd also like to introduce the gambling issue that plagues Stuy [9]. As well as the drug use issue. [10]

Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech, and Bronx Science are right now managed directly by the Chancellor of the Board of Ed. Unlike other schools. So right there is another strong relation. [11] 24.239.149.9 15:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, why are you pulling scores from over a decade ago? 2004 results are in, and Stuyvesant averages 1408 [12], while Bronx Science averages 1299 [13] for SAT. I've also noticed a trend in your posts for a while, in particular that the sources you're citing almost never really backs up what you're saying. The results you're citing for supposed preference of Bronx Science in terms of Harvard admission actually says nothing about it. I don't know the comparative statistics of how many people ultimately decided to go to Harvard, but how exactly does that relate to the issue at hand?

The issue here is whether it is necessary to include "thus far", and your response actually has absolutely nothing to do with it. Let's stick with the topic shall we and not be sidetracked. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 16:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We are spending entirely too much time over 2 words. Ok, Stuyvesants scores have gone higher per student. You should read the entire reference, not just skim thru it. Then you would understand it completely. You haven't even presented a remote challenge to the other reasons i've presented to you. Like highest scores on various tests? Thus far simply shows that something isn't absolute. It can change or has chnaged over time. There is a new bracket system and this bracket system will allow for change. Thus, we need thus far.

http://www.answers.com/topic/stuyvesant-high-school 205.188.117.5 00:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The mechanics of admittance to the NYC specialized school system have changed a number of times since testing began. Why are y'all wasting so much energy arguing about whether it will change again? It will - guaranteed. You don't know how or when, but it will happen eventually. When that day comes, this article will be wrong, and will be in need of correction. In the mean time, we should simply accept that it describes the current state of affairs and move on. There's no call to predict the future or to hedge on whether Stuyvesant will continue in it's current position. Thus far, I see no need for "thus far".

Now, if someone wants to start an article on the NYC specialized schools as a group or the SSHSAT and its history, that might be an intersting place to discuss the ideas of ACORN, Lindsay, Cortines, the test-prep companies, etc., and their various attempts and plans to change things up.

Oh, and what's the point of citing an out-of-date copy of this article via Answers.com? RossPatterson 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as I mentioned on December 28th, "'Thus far' is not necessary, if the situation does change then the article can be modified to reflect the new situation." --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 17:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RossPenisson an article that is 2 weeks old can be considered to be out of date. I'd agree to keep exhibit 6 as it is written with no other change. 24.239.149.9 01:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what's the point of the Answers.com reference? You wanted us to see something, right? Well, it's a big article, and it's a copy of this page from at least six months ago, before the bridge photo had to be replaced. So can you point us to what you wanted us to see? RossPatterson 03:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

take some time and read it. 24.239.149.9 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read it. It's pretty good, in fact I like it a lot. Of course, since it is the 20 June 2005 version of this Wikipedia article, I ought to like it. I guess you do too, so on behalf of my fellow editors, thanks for the shout-out. RossPatterson 05:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

compromise.. we take out Thus far, and place in the word Currently, 64.12.116.199 18:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed or not agreed? 205.188.116.136 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it should read "is currently the highest of the schools" or just "is the highest of the schools." "Thus far" either refers to the fact there will be another school which is higher, which is currently not happening, or is obviously biased and suggests a plot to make it "not the highest" by the editor.....--Zxcvbnm 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IS highest of the specialized high schools, with the exception of LaGuardia School for performing Arts. Which uses another method of admission. 205.188.116.136 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ACORN/Lindsay

24.239.149.9's paragraph in Exhibit 1 can be summarized more neatedly with less biased into the sentence in Exhibit 2. --BenjaminTsai 22:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I can agree on this 24.239.149.9 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This same thing is repeated in the article on the Stuyvesant High School student body, it does not belong in the main article. --Zxcvbnm 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There has been a consensus to replace Exhibit 1 with Exhibit 5. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

ok we keep exhibit 5 24.239.149.9 10:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Asbestos

Exhibit 4 is clearly a POV edit. Issues of air quality post 9-11 has been widely covered within the student and parent community. Futhermore, the link provided as reference for "asbestos in the air" only provides reference for non-airborne asbestos measurement on 9/19/2001. It is unclear how the link provided for studies for students taking classes in potentially harmful waste hazard is relevenat to the sentence. Finally, the reference link provided to People's Weekly World in Exhibit 4 is dubious at best. The website is a self-proclaimed partisian site, proudly claiming their "special relationship" with the Communist Party [16]. I have not been able to find the New York Times article cited within the People's Weekly World article. --BenjaminTsai 23:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Very necessary... it's relevancy is stated it has been inserted in the history section/ 9-11 section. 1/4 of the world's population live under communism. Just because there an article that has a relation to it, doesn't make it any less true. You cannot dispute whether or not it is true, consequently it stays. 24.239.149.9 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No evidence, and the edit is unencyclopedic and has no proof, therefore it cannot stay unless you change it into an unbiased paragraph.--Zxcvbnm 19:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, you must provide some valid evidence or restructure the passage such that the presence of asbestos is not made to sound definite, which it is not. Do not think that this section should be removed, because it's a perfectly valid topic. Just treat it in a way such that it is more reputable. Niffweed17 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such a week statement as "the truth of this assertion is unknown" is most suitable here. Are we really to suspect that the Teacher's Union, custodian union, and parents of the students who are otherwise in general very involved with their children's education are going to let something like this be swept under the carpet? The only information we have (so far) that suggests there is any controversy at all today is an article from 2002 published by a controversial newspaper. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than risk their jobs, I can say yes. It is very true. Now unless you can produce something that refutes this evidence you can move on. 68.175.26.54 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but the topic should still not be eliminated altogether. If you want to change it to "It is doubtful that these assertions are correct" or some such, that is perfectly acceptable. Niffweed17 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any real evidence to suggest there is any asbestos problem on campus. All evidence points to the lack of such a problem, and it is very hard to believe New York City media is not jumping all over this. Think of the headline, "Top students at risk of becoming mentally challenged?" ;-) Anonymous user also seems to lean on the side of a massive conspiracy, which is never going to be refutable. Even if someone does get a source from say, EPA, to say that the campus is clean and safe, the anonymous user will only say that the EPA is under pressure to say so and so for fear of their job. If we are to include the reference to the article at all, I think we can use a much stronger term than "doubtful". --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence is strong.. and substantiated Bobbydoop 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobbydoop, you keep on saying that but you have yet to demonstrate where your "strong" and "substantiated" evidence is. All we have is still just that one 2002 article published by the People's_Weekly_World. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 02:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos has many inherent truths and is scientifically based and substantiated. Please stop removing facts. I will be reinserting it. Bobbydoop 02:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobbydoop, you are not "reinserting" things, you are doing reverts that's wiping out many other positive changes completely unrelated to the asbestos topic. This is against Wikipedia etiquette, and it does not appear to be your first infraction. As for the danger of asbestos, no one is arguing about that. However there is no "strong" and "substantiated" evidence that shows there are abnormal amounts of asbestos in the air in and around the Stuyvesant campus today. Please stop misdirecting the issue. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 02:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Allegations that the Stuyvesant High School campus is a health hazard today is a very serious charge. There is zero supporting evidence today despite the fact that many people can benefit from proving such damages (class action lawsuit, etc.). The only individual today who still seems to think there is any issue at all is Bobbydoop. The asbestos paragraph needs to be modified so that it makes it completely clear there has been zero dispute (outside of fringe conspiracy theoriest) about the safety of the building since 2002. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos exposure is quite serious, people die from it. It is also quite relevant in the history of stuyvesant and the fact that here exists a 9-11 section. the link is a reference to verify the information. if i didn't verify information it would easily be able to be removed. 24.239.149.9 17:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Bobbydoop 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A point on editting: The idea of Wikipedia isn't for someone to enter unverified information and someone else to remove it later. Especially when the issue is contentious, the point is to verify the information before adding it to the article, and to cite the verified, reputable source. The onus isn't on BenjaminTsai to hunt for and fail to find support for Bobbydoop's claims, it is on Bobbydoop to find and identify them. The support for the historical (2001-2002) asbestos presence and related health concerns is there to be found, and there were Washington lawmakers and lobbyists (Stuyvesant alumni, no less) involved at the time in forcing the cleanup. Knowing something of the parties involved, I find it very unlikely that there would still be genuine concerns about the presence of asbestos in the school building but that the only citable source would be the People's Weekly World.

As to the danger (or not) posed by asbestos, an article on Stuyvesant is not the place to argue it. There are other, more appropriate articles (e.g. Asbestos, Asbestos and the law).

It is a verifiable fact that certain airbourne contaminants including asbestos were present in the building after the WTC attack. It is a verifiable fact that cleanup measures were performed on several occasions by a collection of Federal and city agencies. It is a verifiable fact that it took congressional intervention to make some of those cleanups happen. As one who isn't a partisan in this fight, I'm not going to provide citations, but they are downright trivial to find. It seems appropriate to me for this article note that there were health issues arising from the WTC attack, although they appear (to me) to be a small aspect of the history of Stuyvesant. It is inappropriate for the article to speculate on the future, and it is against "one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding polic[ies]" for it to make contentious claims that have not been verified. RossPatterson 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ross links are provided below from the EPA. 24.239.149.9 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, they sure are. Those two EPA citations alone should be enough to support the claim that there once was asbestos in the building, even though they specifically state that what was found was asbestos dust, not airbourn asbestos. So the past is well wrapped up. As to the present and the future, we seem to lack any supporting citations. RossPatterson 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We can look directly at the airborne asbestos measurements. The EPA site provides a nice summary of measurement results. Stuyvesant is located at Location L. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So your claim is based on the fact that there isn't any airborne asbestos? That isn't the only kind there is that is dangerous. http://www.chiff.com/a/asbestos-disease.htm . There is a real and present danger b/c measurements have proven it. 24.239.149.9 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Subsection titles

24.239.149.9, if you are unhappy with the subsection names, feel free to change them to modify them to something you feel is more appropriate. Please do not however remove the formatting as the lack of formatting makes it hard to follow this discourse. --BenjaminTsai 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

formatting is agreed upon can you agree on what is acceptable and consessions being made? 24.239.149.9 00:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, if you don't know how to edit an article, then please leave. You CANNOT make sections all in bold. You can't make biased assertions without reasonable proof, and your links don't contain proof. Also, your edits are mispelled, and you cannot keep vandalizing. Unless you can get a court ruling that tests are biased, then you can't put that there, and the EPA says that asbestos is at a safe level, so you cannot put that students were "not made aware" of being in a "toxic waste dump" because it's simply not true. Now please stop or you will be banned...again.....because you have been before and you are probably a vandal.--Zxcvbnm 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable proof was given with links. If you can refute this evidence than you can have a valid argument. If not accept it as fact and move on. When people are in danger, bold is quite necessary! 68.175.26.54 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you can put assertions into Wikipedia. You just convert them into verifiable facts (ex. "Pigs can fly" -> "So and so asserts that pigs can fly"). --BenjaminTsai 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

there is reasonable proof. if you'd like to get a court order stating who is the princapal you can do it also. Bobbydoop 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobbydoop, I'm not sure I see where the "reasonable proof" is. All we have is a 2002 article from a newspaper of dubious reputation, claiming to cite a New York Times article but provides no reference at all to the article cited. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no proof and if the creator of those passages was really serious they would have read the style guidelines and made it a normal paragraph without bolding. The fact that they are anonymous gives no credibility whatsoever.--Zxcvbnm 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That is in general my feeling, however I try to practice WP:FAITH.. but that can only go on for so long. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts

Bobbydoop (presumably 24.239.149.9), it is against Wikipedia etiquette to do wholesale reverts. Particularly if this results in reverting positive changes that is totally unrelated to the reason for your revert. I refer specifically to the infobox changes, fixes to the (in dispute) Bronx Science see also link, and the NPOV dispute template. Please stop reverting and try to resolve this dispute in a more cordial manner. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Tsai - It is incorrect and morally wrong to slowly delete any issues that you have with information that has been substantiated. Your deletes seem to be racially biased as are your arguments. 68.175.26.54 16:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

what you fail to understand is that your edits are not based on fact and are questionable. BenjaminTsai is correct in removing them so that they reflect the standards of reputability to which Wikipedia upholds. I know you have not listened to reason, but please stop removing the NPOV tag, as it is clearly appropriate for this article and stop posting whole sentences in bold, as this interferes with Wikipedia style. Additionally, please stop pasting your inane asbestos-related comments, as they are not appropriately handled in the form of Wikipedia. Niffweed17 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, please point out which of my subsequent revisions are racially biased. I have steered clear of the contentious topics and have only been doing minor edits on formatting. I'm sorry if you feel changing the school infobox template, removing the text "SPECTATOR NO LONGER HAS A WEBSITE", giving a count of pretigious award winners, syncronizing the study body text with the text on the Student Body main article, and so forth are racially biased edits. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

it is quite appropriate to utilize substantiated information. this isn't the middle ages and fact must be included. 68.175.26.54 18:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that substantiated information is appropriate is quite correct, but you fail to understand that you are not handling it in an appropriate manner. Some of the sources provided are overtly obvious and unnecessary; for example, it is not necessary to post information on the Stuy PA or on how lead poisoning causes brain damage, as these have nothing to do with the sources. Furthermore, some information used to back your argument is dubious, such as the EPA source you have referenced. Bottom line, your sources are not good, are generally misplaced within the article, and do not conform to the Wikipedia style guidelines. If you do nothing else, stop placing sections in bold and stop removing the NPOV tag. Niffweed17 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not handling them inappropriately. You aren't because you aren't provided evidence to refute the information. You're giving biased POV in an effort to protect Stuyvesant for some reason. Are you a student, former student, or related to the school for some reason?? 68.175.26.54 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether I am a student, an alumnus, a faculty member or any other relation to Stuyvesant is none of your business at all. You are handling the information inappropriately. I am not giving a biased POV to protect Stuyvesant; your proof of there being asbestos exposure in Stuyvesant is merely unreputable. A link to how lead poisoning can cause brain damage, for example, has nothing to do with Stuyvesant High School, or any potential exposure that it may have to asbestos. While it is acceptable that the idea that Stuyvesant High School is exposed to asbestos be included in the article, your handling of it as a definite fact is not acceptable because your sources are not varied and not generally reputable. I thought I was very kind in saying "The truth of this assertion is unknown." Furthermore, I don't need to provide evidence to refute yours because this is an encyclopedia article, not a debate. You need to provide some good, reputable evidence to support your POV. As always, PLEASE stop it with the bold typeface; it's really annoying. Niffweed17 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

your handling of information is ridiculous. if you can't refute evidence than keep it in and stop debating over it. Also the Stuyvesant article is too long according to wikipedia. a large scale deletion of information may be in order. 68.175.26.54 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Those of us who have been working on this article for more than the last week have addressed the size point on several occasions, and will likely continue to do so once things settle back down. The list of alumni at List of Stuyvesant High School people was once part of this page, as was Stuyvesant High School student body. There are some other obvious spin-outs, and someone will undoubtably address them in a calm, cool, and collected fashion. RossPatterson 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Stuy article being too long may be a valid point, but if so it should not necessarily be deleted. It should be moved onto different pages. Now, about the remainder of your comment, it is incorrect. This is an encyclopedia article, not a debate floor. I can say that the sky is falling and reference the current cloudy weather, but is it reputable? Your sources are simply not acceptable and they do not serve to adequately prove your point; they are therefore unacceptable. For the last time, please stop with the bold faced type. And by the way, your grammar could use some improvement as well. Niffweed17 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user (sockpuppets?) seems to be trolling, especially with the incendiary comment about "large scale deletion" and unsubstantiated accusations of racism. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated??! You downplay any bias that may be presented against historical US minorities, even if it is substantiated. This is due to a bias you possess. Bobbydoop 02:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobbydoop, how does replacing Exhibit 1 with Exhibit 2 downplay potential biases against African and Hispanic Americans? --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have argued that, like the SAT and other standardized exams, the exam may be biased against African and Hispanic Americans. [17]" is this a fair compromise? Bobbydoop 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is fine. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright remove exhibit 1 and 2 and place rename it agreement 1. 152.163.100.199 04:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Bold text

We should keep Exhibit 1 and 2 as reference for other people following this discussion. I've added the agreed phrasing as Exhibit 5 to be consistent. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute...by saying that, you are saying that the SAT and other standardized exams are all biased, which I don't think has been proven. A better way to phrase it is

"While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have argued that the exam, as well as the SAT and other standardized exams, may be biased against African and Hispanic Americans. [18]"

or just

"While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have argued that the exam may be biased against African and Hispanic Americans. [19]"--Zxcvbnm 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it what it is agreed on and nothing else. 24.239.149.9 00:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you kept it like that it would still be biased which is presumably what you want, if you don't agree with a non-biased version.--Zxcvbnm 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

that isn't a NPOV. WE have already agreed that it is to be kept. 205.188.116.136 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Style

The Bold type which you use is totally inappropriate, and just annoying. There is presently no conceivable benefit for using it, particularly on the talk page. Niffweed17 21:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The anonymous user also inserts inappropriate visible editorial comments like "verify this" in the main article. It needs to either a) go into talk page or b) be inserted as an HTML comment. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 23:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The anon is obviously making it bold on purpose for the reason of attracting attention. That style cannot be used in Wikipedia.--Zxcvbnm 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you choose to use information please verify it. If you choose to delete information verify it as well. Bobbydoop 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never deleted information except that information which is unnecessary and redundant. With regards to the article that speaks about asbestos related problems, all I have done is restructure the information such that the irrelevant information, such as the link to the Stuy PA environmental concerns webpage, has been removed. This is not relevant information, and if used, should at least direct the user to a more informative source if used. With regards to the article citing asbestos exposure, I have included it in what I perceive to be a NPOV statement. Apparently you do not accept this as being the case. Niffweed17 07:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos exposure is quite serious, people die from it. It is also quite relevant in the history of stuyvesant and the fact that here exists a 9-11 section. the link is a reference to verify the information. if i didn't verify information it would easily be able to be removed. Bobbydoop 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not verify it, that link does not explicitly say the asbestos in Lower Manhattan is dangerous and therefore the information is false. So then, it should be removed, according to you.--Zxcvbnm 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this good enough? they specifically deal with Stuyvesant the High School

http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/bulk_dust_monitoring?p_addr_id=0360610308 http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/bulk_dust_monitoring?p_addr_id=0360610304 http://www.counterpunch.org/orkin10162004.html http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/101104_lingering_cloud.shtml http://www.alternet.org/911oneyearlater/14073/

A teacher, Mark Bodenheimer, from Stuyvesant even died from respiritory issues. http://www.alternet.org/911oneyearlater/14073/

parental concerns

http://www.stuypa.org/Environment/OIG%20Summary%2009-15-03.doc Bobbydoop 23:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Several of these articles look like good evidence that there may have been asbestos shortly after 9/11 at Stuy. The idea that there remains lingering concern is natural, but, given that all these sources seem to be from a couple years ago (~~and that the EPA's report does show that the asbestos level is decreasing~~), the only definite facts that can be expressed in this should be in a rather retrospective manner. You can still, of course, present your good evidence that there is a reasonable possibility of continued asbestos exposure at Stuy.

I do, however, think that the third, fourth, and fifth sources you cite here are not necessarily useful. Essentially, they do not at all conform to NPOV, they are not particularly impartial sources, and they do more Bush bashing than they describe the problem. The other sources seem to rely more on facts, and they better represent the situation. Niffweed17 06:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The 5th is necessary. It specifically speaks of a teacher who died of respiratory issues. This teacher was teaching at Stuyvesant at the time. So is there an agreement that with this evidence that the Asbestos does remain in the history as well as the 9-11 portion of the article? 24.239.149.9 10:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be in history as a reworded retrospective version but not as a current warning, due to the lack of sources about, say, December 2005 levels.--Zxcvbnm 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zxcbbnm, I agree completely. 24.239.149.9, if you read the 5th article you would see that your assumption that Mark Bodenheimer died is completely false. He suffered from a respiratory condition, possibly (but by no means necessarily) due to exposure from asbestos. He did not die, he merely accepted a transfer to a school in the bronx, most likely Bronx High School of Science. Furthermore, although the article does contain some factual evidence relating specifically to Stuyvesant High School, its inclusion is dubious because

Much of the rest of the article seems to be a partisan attack against Bush.
The article is very long, and the majority of it has nothing to do with Stuy; Mark Bodenheimer is only mentioned briefly.
The article comes from a relatively dubious source, which looks to be a partisan political website.

For these reasons, the article should not be included in the text of the article. You can put it in the External Links section, however, and you can briefly speak of Mark Bodenheimer's plight in the text of the article. Niffweed17 18:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zxcbbnm, Niffweed17, I agree with the assessments here. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 21:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

is there any proof that he didn't die? the article specifically states that he died. The article presents strong evidence that there is a scare. There is a current fear of this in the area and a current warning is necessary. 24.239.149.9 07:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

um, where did he die? can you show us the text in the article that says that he died? Niffweed17 16:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, for a dead (undead?) teacher, he sure gets pretty good reviews [20] from his students ... ;-) --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 16:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mark Bodenheimer did indeed transfer to Bronx High School of Science, and last I heard he was still living. See http://secure.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=21nyc.h21 for a February 2002 citation of the former (subscription required, but the Google cache has the full text). RossPatterson 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok compromise. Asbestos is kept in the history as well as the 9-11 section. We speak about the dangers that were left in the 9-11 section and in the history section we speak of the dangers as well as the fears that people have concerning various dust products in the air. The teacher transferring due to respiratory issues is kept in along with his name. Everything is given a reference. 24.239.149.9 20:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as long as you don't make it seem like asbestos is a clear and present danger and that the teacher transferred only due to that (the cause is unknown) and it is kept in past tense.--Zxcvbnm 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, what is your proposal? Please write it out and we can discuss rationally. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: there would be no point to writing the same material twice in the 9/11 section and in the history section. Why can the 9/11 section simply be moved as a subsection of the history section (as it obviously relates to Stuy history), and all relevant material to possible past asbestos exposure be included there? Niffweed17 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Asbestos IS a clear and present danger. The students have been exposed and there is a continued exposure to other chemicals in the area. There have been EPA studies concerning this. People should be made aware, is this compromise accepted or not? The compromise must be spoken about in the History as well as 9-11 section. If you choose to make 9-11 a subsection of the history I can agree, but the asbestos issue must be listed in the 9-11 section as well as later on b/c the concerns of the parents and others were after 9-11. 205.188.117.5 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Tsai ching chong fung fong to szhuan wing chun. Is that more comprehendable to you? 205.188.117.5 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've proven you're a racist, nobody will listen to you, so give it up.....the EPA has not proven anything dangerous, just 1% increased levels....forget it or you will be banned....--Zxcvbnm 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think 9/11 would fit better as a subsection of the history section, so if nobody else has any objections I think it could be included there. Furthermore, I never objected to the inclusion of the idea of asbestos concerns in the article. However, your manner of including them was not in acceptance with WP:style, did not conform to NPOV and was poorly phrased. Furthermore, your stance "people should be made aware," does not conform with NPOV at all; although you can mention the concern of asbestos, you simply cannot treat it as if it were undisputed fact, because it simply is not.

Regarding this supposed "compromise," all of the material that you have cited is perfectly acceptable for inclusion, but you have not treated it in an accceptable manner. So, if you include it with an NPOV stance and conform to style guidelines (please no sections in bold), then nobody will have a problem with it. However, if you continue to make edits in the audacious and biased manner that you previously were, then they will doubtless be reverted and this conflict will remain unsolved. Niffweed17 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur.--Zxcvbnm 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to find in the sources that anonymous user provided any reference to "continued exposure to other chemicals" or any indication of asbestos as a "clear and present danger". I agree that the majority of the cited materials can be included in the History section written up properly in a non POV manner as issues in the past, issues that are no longer in active contention by the people who had the greatest personal stake in it (current students, parents, teachers, custodians, etc.). --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't as much an edit war as a single vandal who does not want to accept the facts. I don't know why this hasn't been resolved already, all the other users agree on the right way it should be written.--Zxcvbnm 15:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm , EPA has standards and the levels around Stuyvesant are above that. Please re read the statement. Ben Tsai has made various comments concerning his inability to understand so I gave him a translation in mandonese dialect in the attempts that he may understand, so please with your racist comments. I believe that you aren't a concerned parent b/c if you were you'd want to understand the dangers that have been and haven't been disproven about the dangers of chemicals in the air including ASBESTOS. Maybe you aren't concerned with the health of a child but I am. People must be made aware. If you'd like to put it in it's own section called Concerns to Parents, workers and students we can agreeon that. 24.239.149.9 16:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the actual EPA page that you provided, you'll see that it says nothing about dangerous levels of asbestos in the air, or indeed anything at all about airborne asbestos. If you look around more on the EPA site, you can find actual data on airborne asbestos. You might then perhaps read the summary and look at actual measurements for each site [21]. According to the EPA, there's no danger from airborne asbestos in Stuyvesant.

I don't know what you mean by "mandonese". I think you might mean "Mandarin" and if so, ching, fung, szhuan, wing, and chun do not correspond to any Mandarin word I know of, assuming you're using the ISO Chinese romanization standard. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter who you are, a concerned parent or whoever, the information you put is false, there is no proof, and it is merely a theory. The asbestos levels are not dangerous and your information is akin to adding a part to the New York article that claims everyone must evacuate the city due to pollution. The agreed upon way to write it, which states that dangerous levels were present or that some people claim they are present is the only way to write it, because you cannot state it as fact, due to the absolute lack of evidence, as explained by Benjamin.--Zxcvbnm 18:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the problem is not that the information is indubitably false, but that it is expressed as a warning and as an editorial, rather than as fact. It is certainly acceptable to treat the whole issue in a rather retrospective manner, as it does appear that there previously was concern. It is likewise acceptable to treat the matter as questionable. However, the anon seems to demand that the information be prominently displayed and unquestioned, as demonstrated by his "people must be made aware" motivation. This, however, does not conform to NPOV and is not factually accurate. Wikipedia is not meant to inform people of potential dangers. Rather, it is meant to be a veritable source of facts. What I fear is that when the page is unprotected, one of us will change it to an appropriate NPOV format, and this anon user will turn around and add his inane warnings again. Niffweed17 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Government statistics aren't false. So airborne asbestos is the only kind that is dangerous? I think not! Niffweed and Zxc, you have yet to present an argument other than saying that it's false. I have provided EPA reports! You have provided nothing. I have provided testing facts that are released to the public! Dangerous levels are present and haven't been proven to have gone away. Would you like to prove that it's not there anymore? You logic is poor at best. So Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon 20 years ago, does that mean it doesn't exist anymore? Please provide evidence that the dangers don't exist anymore or leave this as a closed case. 24.239.149.9 00:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The report specifically says that the levels are not dangerous! Quoted from the site:The presence of asbestos in dust is not necessarily a significant health hazard and that was years ago!--Zxcvbnm 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think 2.1% is dangerous... http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/bulk_dust_monitoring?p_addr_id=0360610308 later gator.. 24.239.149.9 03:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is from the links you provided to the EPA site: "The presence of asbestos in dust is not necessarily a significant health hazard. The dust must become airborne and be inhaled for it to cause health problems. Measurements of asbestos in the air are more accurate indicators of the potential for exposure." If you will notice, your asbestos readings are "asbestos in bulk dust." So, your statement that the asbestos in air is not necessarily the only kind of harmful asbestos is correct, but asbestos in bulk dust are not particularly useful.

Nonetheless, I still think it is acceptable and necessary to include the subject of asbestos debate under the 9/11 section, preferably as a subsection of the history section. However, it must be retrospective. There is no evidence that the asbestos that may have existed after 9/11 is still around today, and contrary to what you have been claiming, you have not provided any. If you're going to go the route of "I must be right because I have 200 sources even if most of them are irrelevant," then at least be thorough about it. Niffweed17 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So your claim is based on the fact that there isn't any airborne asbestos? That isn't the only kind there is that is dangerous. http://www.chiff.com/a/asbestos-disease.htm . There is a real and present danger b/c measurements have proven it. Don't dust, sweep, or vacuum debris that may contain asbestos. Don't saw, sand, scrape, or drill holes in asbestos materials. Don't use abrasive pads or brushes on power strippers to strip wax from asbestos flooring. Never use a power stripper on a dry floor. Asbestos in the floor can be made airborne and thus affect peoples heath. 24.239.149.9 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're trying to change the argument here to argue how bad asbestos is, and thus to attempt to convince us that any possible danger of asbestos must be recorded. This is not accurate, however. There is no question that asbestos is dangerous, even though you may be misrepresenting the effects of it somewhat. However, before I delve into this, I would like to say that I get the feeling you're not listening to me. Far more important than a petty squabble on the nature of the dangers of asbestos is how this information is handled in the context of an article. I don't know how to put it any more plainly than I have above. The article must be written such that the presence of asbestos is not a certainty, and must be written with a retrospective nature. If you attempt to continue to change this, then the debate will not be solved. Niffweed17 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you find what I've written on the subject to be acceptable? Niffweed17 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The presense of asbestos is certain the long term affect on the current and future batch of children isn't. 24.239.149.9 09:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's simply not true. The presence of asbestos is by no means certain. It is conceivable, but you have provided old sources with no definite proof of asbestos. Niffweed17 23:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The presence of Asbestos has been a confirmed FACT There has been no major efforts to remove the asbestos. There are articles that complain of the dangers that students were put into. 205.188.117.5 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if asbestos is there, it has been a confirmed FACT that it is not dangerous under normal conditions. There has been a major asbestos removal in Stuyvesant right after 9/11.The articles are not necessarily true. Just because you read "Titanic Flies to Moon" in the Enquirer doesn't mean it's true.--Zxcvbnm 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No. It is NOT a confirmed fact. Showing an old entry for Stuyvesant showing asbestos as floor dust does not qualify as a confirmed fact. Likewise, parents' complaints from three years ago is also not a confirmed fact. Niffweed17 00:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

you must have breathed in asbestos. Confirmed fact is EPA reports, and I doubt parents would lie about their children being sick so enough with that! 24.239.149.9 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

you are a fool. take a look at your data. take a look at [User:BenjaminTsai|BenjaminTsai's] data on the matter and you will find that your data is rather irrelevant. Niffweed17 21:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ya mother is a fool dimwit. I have provided reliable data and that's what will stay. Offer a compromise or STFU! 68.175.26.54 20:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

oh, so now we have a nice comment about my mother. that could be all that is necessary to get you banned. i, will, however, desist until you start being a pain. Niffweed17 23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

your above comment will get you banned as well. so lets get back to discussions. 68.175.26.54 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this on your talk page: when someone refers to me as a fool and nothing is stated i'll reply back. this is unfair. Something WAS stated, that your data is irrelevant and your conclusions are unresearched & false. For example: you must have breathed in asbestos. Confirmed fact is EPA reports, and I doubt parents would lie about their children being sick so enough with that! The asbestos is not airborne, it says so in the very EPA report you cited. It cannot make people sick if it's not airborne and might not even be there - the report is over 3 years old!--Zxcvbnm 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You say:Asbestos in the floor can be made airborne and thus affect peoples heath. That's not true if it isnt there anymore and it is long gone from the school and city streets due to cleanup operations in 2001 as well as time and rain, etc.--Zxcvbnm 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read and understand about asbestos dangers http://www.chiff.com/a/asbestos-disease.htm . thanks 152.163.100.199 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

what has become of the asbestos issue? is it agreed that is stays?!?!? 205.188.116.136 14:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the current handling of the asbestos issue. It is presently mentioned, the possibilities are considered, and makes the conclusion that there is little evidence to suggest the issue. This form of the asbestos issue is a reasonable way to treat it. As for your intention to slap on your absurd POV addition in bold, it is thoroughly unacceptable. 162.84.192.242 22:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was me. I have no idea how I got logged out. Niffweed17 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV vs vandalism

All right, in addition to making edits based on your absurd asbestos related material, you have now engaged in absolutely blatant vandalism. The last time I checked, it was not called "Stuyvecrap High School." You cannot defend yourself against such utterly obvious motives. Niffweed17 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called a vandal. You can't do anything about it, since the IP he is using is an AOL IP, so this page should be semi-protected permanently.--Zxcvbnm 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered this. Nonetheless, this does not prevent my attempt to negotiate with this loser, as he appears ready to do despite his rampant vandalism. Niffweed17 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

not sure where stuyvecrap came from... but simply reverting to the 9-11 issue parts.. 152.163.100.199 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It came from an edit by 167.206.203.14 at 12:32 on 11 January 2006. This is just one of the reasons why revert-wars are bad - nobody quite knows what they're putting back when the revert the article. As I and others have pointed out to you on occasion, your repeated reversions are undoing perfectly legitimate changes as well as the ones you oppose. RossPatterson 00:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

don't delete when editing and there will be no war.. 64.12.116.200 08:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

64.12.116.200 and whatever other IPs and userids you use: You need to get used to the fact that there is legitimate editting going on here, outside of your disputes. When you revert the article to an older copy, you undo those legitimate changes. It's simply wrong. If you absolutely must fight over disputed content, please restrict your "war" to undoing those disputed changes - by hand-editting if need be. RossPatterson 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Exhibits

Exhibit 1

"While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their
performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have
argued [2] [3] that, like the SAT and other standardized
exams, the exam may be biased against African and Hispanic
Americans. [http://www.educationnext.org/20033/20.html]  For
further information, see the articles on Stuyvesant's student
body and standardized testing."

Exhibit 2

John Lindsay, ACORN, and other opponents of the current
admission system have argued that standardized tests like
the SAT and SSHSAT are biased against African and Hispanic
Americans.

Exhibit 3

''See also:'' [[Bronx Science]], [[Brooklyn Technical High School]]

Exhibit 4

'''There has been many issues that Stuyvesant students and
parents have not been made fully aware of including, the
asbestos in the air
[http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/bulk_dust_monitoring?p_addr_id=0360610308],
and long term exposure risks. The studies are with students still
taking classes in a potentially harmful waste hazard. 
[http://www.stuypa.org/environment/resources.htm]''' Like
Led Poisoning, this could cause potential brain damage as well
as respiratory issues. [http://www.pww.org/article/view/1273/1/86/]

Exhibit 5

While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their
performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have
argued that, like the SAT and other standardized
exams, the exam may be biased against African and Hispanic
Americans. [http://www.educationnext.org/20033/20.html]

Exhibit 6

The test score necessary for admission to Stuyvesant since
its relocation to its Battery Park City campus has been the
highest thus far of the schools
[http://www.nycenet.edu/Offices/StudentEnroll/HSAdmissions
 /hsProcess/Specialadm/special.htm.],
admissions is currently a matter of score on an examination
as well as choice placement.

Mediation

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/26_12_2005_Stuyvesant_High_School

The following issues appear to be unresolved:

Admission requirement

see Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School#Admissions_requirement

The main issue seems to be the use of the words thus far. Wikipedia generally aims to document the current state of affairs and does not aim to predict or anticipate future developments, especially not in the form of original research by the wikipedia editors. (see Wikipedia:No original research). If there is a reputable publication that predicts a change that fact can be mentioned, otherwise it seems redundant to alert the reader of an encyclopedic article to the fact that the article describes past developments up to the time of the last change of the article. --Fasten 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Asbestos

see Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School#9.2F11_Asbestos

The dispute does not properly distinguish to issues:

Has the school failed to inform parents about actual health risks? The following link may be interesting for further research on this:
- The Air We Breathe In Lower Manhattan
Is the school possibly still a health hazard today?

The article the People's Weekly World article was referring to might be With Uncertainty Filling the Air, 9/11 Health Risks Are Debated but I cannot verify that.

The last New York Times article about the topic appears to be When Breathing Is Believing; New Yorkers Doubt E.P.A. Credibility on Air Safety, but Truth Is Complex.

As the date of this article is November 30, 2003 I suggest to turn down the tone of the wikipedia article as of 06:27, 3 January 2006 if no other, more recent publications, mention the issue. The problem we are talking about is the removal of dust particles, which can be done with thorough cleaning. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (see Wikipedia:No original research) about the fact whether the school might be a health hazard today or not if there are no current publications to support this view. --Fasten 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

anything within the last 5 years is recent when it comes to disasters.. 64.12.116.200 08:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not revert

Folks, while some of you are engaged in an edit war, undisputed changes by others are being undone. These changes are being lost simply because one or another of you reverts the article to their favorite version, not because any of you have a stated problem with the changes.

Please work out your issues here on the talk page and you'll avoid getting blocked for these reverts. I see that the latest offender has already been hit with a 24-hour block for breaking the three-revert-rule on another page. RossPatterson 13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made sure to include the other undisputed changes in the revert. I recommend immediately banning the anon and all his sock puppets that are vandalizing this page constantly even after the changes were agreed upon.--Zxcvbnm 21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping preserve the undisputed parts of the page. You missed a category change, but I fixed it. As to banning people, you need to recommend that to a sysadmin, they aren't likely to be watching this page. RossPatterson 01:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Zxcvbm you'll be recommended for bannig as well and i will recommend for a page protection due the wholesale reverts again. 205.188.117.5 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow are you kidding??? You are vandalizing this page with an AOL account and I will be recommended for banning?--Zxcvbnm 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I could have predicted this. This anon user simply will not listen. But, since he still thinks he's right, I recommend filing an RfC against this guy. Niffweed17 00:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article due to edit warring. Editors are also busting the Three-revert rule, so they may be blocked as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The page was unprotected yesterday by another admin, on the assumption that the cooling-off period worked. Let's hope that it has. RossPatterson 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just made a couple of copy-editting changes unrelated to the ongoing NPOV Dispute, since the page should have good grammar and spelling even if the editors are arguing over its content. RossPatterson 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

During the edit war, some changes by 160.254.20.253 relating to the ice hockey team were removed, I believe by accident. Does anyone object to my restoring these?

Before:

   Stuyvesant has recently added a varsity Ice Hockey team, the 
   first public school in New York City history to do so, it is 
   run without administrative assistance by Matthew Ginther. They 
   have been in first place in their one team league every year, 
   though they often play teams from outside their league.

After:

   In 2000, Stuyvesant added a varsity [[ice hockey]] team, the 
   first public school in New York City history to do so, it has 
   been run without administrative assistance by the players. They 
   have been dominant in their [[Chelsea Piers]] league every year, 
   though they often play teams from outside their league. In 2002, 
   Brooklyn Tech added a team of their own, further fueling the rivalry 
   between the two schools.

RossPatterson 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine, I believe that anonymous IP had inserted a note saying "verify" in the actual article itself with regards to Stuyvesant being the first to have a varisty Ice Hockey team. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It hs to do with the first public school in NYC to have one. 24.239.149.9 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was the edit reverted again? 216.194.63.226 04:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AP Weighting

With regards to the brief period of weighting AP courses as 1.1 in overall averages, the article stated that Stuyvesant "had long opposition to this change." Nonetheless, this claim is inaccurate, as Stuy implemented the policy upon request by the Board of Ed. While it was true that almost everyone was initially opposed to this policy, it was only in effect at Stuy for one year, and was implemented immediately upon its citywide creation. Niffweed17 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Stuyvesant High School. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.