Talk:Bronx High School of Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Bronx High School of Science is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 24 November 2006

Contents

[edit] Notable Alumni

When people add a name to the "Notable Alumni" list, can you please include the year the person graduated? Also, if folks could fill in all the missing years for people already on there it would help. It seems okay to keep this list alphabetical, as opposed to chronological, but having the year gives some needed perspective.

Gacggt 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, I agree - I've been going through the list, adding to it, and trying to get those years in. Tvoz 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, "Bronx Science also counts among its graduates twenty-nine current members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, an honor attained by only about 2,000 American scientists." I think this is an overstatement, though it may merely be a case of poor grammar. More than 2,000 American scientists have become members of the NAS; only about 2,000 are members at any given time. Being a "current member" is no greater an honor than having been a member in the past, so the appropriate figure to use would be the total number of NAS members throughout history. Of course, then we would need the total number of Bronx Science alumni in the NAS throughout history as well. Alternatively, the article could say "Bronx Science also counts among its graduates twenty-nine current members of the (roughly) 2,000-member U.S. National Academy of Sciences." I have no real preference among these options and will leave the decision to others, but the current text has to go.

Removed this item as I was not able to verify it - possible vandalism? "Walter Joseph, class of 2006- member of D-Block current Haverford Student." Pls fix format and re-post if it is correct, with my apologies. Tvoz 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Frederik Pohl, science fiction writer: one source said he attended Science but didn't graduate, but a more definitive source - the intro to a 2000 interview with him in Locus magazine(http://www.locusmag.com/2000/Issues/10/Pohl.html) - says he attended Brooklyn Tech and didn't graduate. I believe that Locus is correct and I removed him from the list. If anyone has a better source, please respond here. Tvoz 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the following note as hidden text in the alumni section, asking people who add names to follow the style of the section and not just dump a name on and leave it to someone else to clean up. "NOTE TO FOLKS ADDING ALUMNI: please help your fellow editors and put the name you are entering in proper alphabetical order, include the year of graduation if available, and follow the section's style of an asterisk to start the line (creates a bullet), and the name and/or words in their identifying info in double brackets if there's reason to think that they already have a Wiki page." Tvoz 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

JOn Cryer is listed on http://www2.bxscience.edu/alum/1983/ as a member of the class of 1983, so I am reinstating him as such - if you can verify that this is wrong please post it here on Talk. In general, anyway, I have no problem with including well known people who attended but did not graduate as is done on other schools' pages from time to time. So I'll change the intro slightly to accommodate that, and reinstate Lamberg as well, but Cryer I am putting in with an indication of what class he was in, as per http://www2.bxscience.edu/alum/1983/.
To 65.57.106.28- Yes I went to Science, (even graduated, in the great class of '67), and yes you're being a snob. But don't get angry - I'm a snob too about Science. Consider this:
First of all, the class of '93 considers Jon Cryer a part of their class, as I indicated above. They don't say he didn't graduate - he is listed right there with everyone else on their alum list page, and also mentioned on the web page they've industriously created for their class. If it's good enough for them, I don't see why it isn't good enough for us. That constitutes verification to me. And in fact I don't have any indication from anywhere other than your saying it, that he didn't graduate. How do you know he didn't work out a way to complete his requirements and get a Science diploma even after he left NY?
Second - I think it is very interesting to know that he went to Science, if only (and here comes the snob part) to say that hey, Jon Cryer went to Science, he must be a pretty bright guy, despite the fact that his acting isn't necessarily brilliant. It tells us something about him, and it enhances our group of notable alumni and former students. Same for Adam Lamberg, altho I think Cryer's position here is more secure seeing as, again, the class of '93 claims him and you've given no verifiable data that he didn't graduate. So yeah, he may have left to pursue his acting career - I don't know - but the important point is he did indeed get in to Science, and apparently he attended, enough that his class recognizes him. It would be wrong to remove him from here. Tvoz 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
my typo above - I meant class of '83 not '93Tvoz 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a good question - I have removed people in the past who seemed to be vandalism, after doing a careful web search on them to see if I just had not heard of them. And I always post a note here saying that I removed xyz and if someone has information to verify their notability to please post it here. The Rabbi did come up on web searches, but I'm still looking into that because I haven't had a chance to follow the links. In general, I think that if an author has books out, and a web presence, they are notable. I'm not talking about someone who sat at home and self-published an autobiography that wasn't commercially available and didn't go anywhere - I'm talking about published authors, and we all know the difference. Writing a book doesn't make you notable; getting it published and out into the world, and talked about on the web and elsewhere, does. Who did you have in mind in particular? Tvoz 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
65.57.106.28 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)I know members of classes that have books and web sites, but I'm not sure that fact makes them notable. I didn't have time to go through the whole list, but in my mind "notable" means notable per the definition from define: notable on Google:
Definitions of notable on the Web:
   * noteworthy: worthy of notice; "a noteworthy advance in cancer research"
   * luminary: a celebrity who is an inspiration to others; "he was host to a large gathering of luminaries"
   * celebrated: widely known and esteemed; "a famous actor"; "a celebrated musician"; "a famed scientist"; "an illustrious judge"; "a notable historian"; "a renowned painter"
     wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
By my definition, I don't think the guy who put a flag on a statue is "notable".
The "guy who put the flag on the statue" was all over the news, including the fact that he was an alumnus of Science. I wasn't the one to add him, and I would say his inclusion here is somewhat marginal, but after consideration I thought he should stay too. It apparently was "worthy of notice" to the various news organizations who reported it, and, again, I think it's marginal but my feeling is it's always better to have more information, rather than less. I wouldn't want the list to be more red than blue, for instance (I'm talking Wiki links, not politics, although that's true too) because that would make me wonder how notable all these folks were. But I would absolutely not go along with having that as the sole criterion for whether someone is "notable" or not -you weren't suggesting that, I know.
Oh - also, I did not say that if a person has a website and a book they are prima facie notable. I said if a person has published books, and has a web presence - meaning that if you google him or her you get real, substantive hits - that person probably does belong on this list. If all of their web hits are links to usenet posts they've made, no. But if their web hits are reviews of their books, or people quoting them, or nominations for awards, or listings of many libraries that carry their books, etc - then I think they are notable, and I want to see them here, because the fact that they went to Science adds to our knowledge about them, and vice versa.
In fact, if I can take another second here, I'll show my bias: personally I find it much, much more interesting to see people who are not scientists and mathematicians on this list - no prejudice against scientists or mathematicians, and of course they should be listed - like our Nobel laureates, etc etc - but I would expect to see loads of them as notable alums. What I am very interested to see are the people who have nothing to do with science and math, and yet are here because they have distinguished themselves in other fields - like writers. Like my classmate Richard Price - he's a very successful and damn-good author and screenwriter, having nothing to do with science. Surely by any standards he's notable, and no one is suggesting that he be removed, I assume, but my point is that to me it is extremely interesting that he is a Science alum, more so than the great physicists, bless their hearts. So I draw the line fairly wide and include people from all walks of life who seem notable to me - I can't give a strict defniition, and I don't think we need one. And if someone not so worthy creeps in, is there any real harm? I don't mean dumb vandalism, but a judgment call? I'm going to look more at our rabbi and at Melissa Schorr (but I think I did check her bona fides out already) - and see what I find. I say take it easy, there is absolutely no harm being done here, as long as these are real accomplishments, not bogus ones. Tvoz 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
see aboveTvoz 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I checked around a bit - Melissa Schorr has one novel published by a respectable publisher which has been reviewed in Kirkus (a good review, which is rare for Kirkus), and several other places; she has been a freelance journalist for a while, with numerous articles published; she's on a book tour; her book is widely available; etc. She's new at it, but it's not a vanity post - I think it's notable enough to be here. NOw on to the Rabbi. Tvoz 08:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


But before I have a chance to look into the rabbi - I see you added [Single Malt Whisky Writer] [name redacted at your request], 65.57.106.28. Look, I'm not the cop here, but someone needs to keep an eye on this list so that it doesn't become a joke or a non-Wikipedia-ish tool for self-promotion which everyone should know is not ok here. Although I think it's really cool that he wrote a book about single-malt whisky and runs a blog about it (really, I do), the problem to me is it's a self-published book and there is little if any independent commentary, reviews, etc about it or about him, only praise on other people's blogs or maybe user reviews on Amazon as far as I found. Nothing that I see as press or publishing trade reviews (like Kirkus, or Booklist as Schorr has), no libraries, no apparent notable work outside of this book and blog, etc. I wish him well with this, but based on what I outlined above regarding the Melissa Schorr entry (and I thought she just made it onto the list, not overwhelmingly so), to me this just doesn't fall inside the line of "notable" for inclusion on the list, so I'm inclined to remove him. By the way, I am neither Schorr nor [Single Malt Whisky Writer] , and I don't know either of them - I'm independently evaluating this which I think is how we have to proceed here; someone other than [Single Malt Whisky Writer] himself should weigh in, in other words. Of course I'd be glad to discuss all of this, so I'll wait before removing this one to see what others here think. I'd rather not involve Wiki admins on this level of discussion. Tvoz 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I went over the list again and made the following changes (may have made a few others that i don't remember now - you can check history). I hope no one will take any offense, as none was intended -just trying to keep this as a defendable encyclopedia entry:

  • removed Aaron Turkewitz, scientist - although seems like an accomplished fellow, and a good teacher, I didn't find anything that would warrant including him as "notable" - unless my search didn't yield something more significant; if so, someone please post here
  • removed Ben Rutkowski, filmmaker - You Tube and student films are all I found, plus some self-promotion elsewhere on wiki which this listing could also be
  • removed the rabbi, Rabbi Louis Eliezer Finkelstein, educator - couldn't find anything to justify inclusion

Added significant info to these, which explains their inclusion on our list:

  • April Smith - author of several books, television movies and series episodes; Emmy-nominated founding producer of Cagney & Lacey, other shows
  • Judith Baumel - published poet, winner of Walt Whitman award

Wikified others, to further highlight their accomplishments and explain their inclusion here.

As always, if anyone has comments or additions - please say so here. And by the way - it has been suggested that the page itself could use some more references, so if anyone can help out on that it would be great. Tvoz 20:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


You're right, 65.57.106.28, I didn't suggest that the anonymous poster was Melissa Schorr - you did, in your 19:55, 2 November 2006 comment here. Was it "cool" for you to say that?
You know what? I don't care if she posted her own name, and I don't care if you are him and posted your own, or not. What I care about is if by some kind of objective standards the names on the list are reasonable. I removed some names for the reasons I gave at the time. I didn't remove him, but I raised a question about including his name because of the reasons I gave, based on the information available to me.
And you are not being consistent - at first you questioned Jon Cryer's being included, and then said "I know members of classes that have books and web sites, but I'm not sure that fact makes them notable", seeming to be looking for stricter standards. I tried to explain what my own criteria are regarding that, and your response seemed to be to reverse your position and post the name of someone who essentially has a book and a website - no, a blog. So, do you want stricter standards or looser ones? (By the way, I was also the one who said people should take it easy, that no harm is done if someone who may not have graduated, or is otherwise unorthodox, is on the list, provided there's some demonstrable reason for them to be there. I don't want only the Nobels.)
I have repeatedly asked for other objective folks to comment. I said I am not the cop here. I've tried to outline the criteria I use when I'm evaluating this. I gave reasons for my opinions and when I've removed names I've asked if anyone knew something I had missed. What more do you want?
As for your restaurant owner - I'm sure we have dozens of successful entrepreneurs among the alumni, and they can't all be included here as notable, can they. Do you want to give some reason for including him, or are you still just trying to prove your point? And I certainly never even implied, let alone said, that this has anything at all to to do with whether someone's "restaurants are good enough". What, the food? Come on.
And finally - you changed my heading here on this section of Talk, and, as I've said elsewhere, that is not ok. It's, like, one of the rules. Don't edit other people's comments on Talk. Don't remove them. That's not the way Talk works. Period. As I'm sure you know, nothing really disappears on Wikipedia - it is very easy to look back at past history on any page, and user contributions, and see who said what to whom, so no, at this moment I'm not inclined to agree to have my comments removed from here, whatever the outcome. We'll see.
I have tried to remain respectful to the people whose names have been raised. I am not trying to offend anyone, as I also said above earlier today - all I am trying to do is to make this as good a page as possible. Tvoz 08:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


I guess I'm not being clear, or you're refusing to understand what I am saying. I am only one editor here, and I don't think I'm in charge. I've said it over and over. I wish other editors would participate in this discussion and we could reach consensus. I am not invested in my opinions, I just state them and I attempt to edit in a consistent and objective way. (Oh, and you actually have no idea when I started working on Wikipedia - you only know when I made my first edit on this account. Maybe I forgot what my original log-in was and just set up a new one - ever think of that? That was just a snide remark by you, and anyway, I see no relevance even if you were correct.)
I just am the most recent person to take an interest in seeing that this section be encyclopedic and verifiable, not based on personal opinion or taste. Not mine, not yours, not anyone's. You seemed to want that too when you questioned the rabbi and the flag raiser. I didn't add either one of them. I checked who they are and responded in the way I thought appropriate. I removed the rabbi and said why - if someone says why he should be there and reinstates him, and it makes sense to me, then I won't take him out again. I left in the flag raiser and said why. If you disagree, then take him out - I didn't, because I think it's ok for him to be there. But if someone takes him out I probably won't reinstate him - I'm not sure - but maybe someone else will reinstate him. That's the way it works.
I don't know what other people here think, and would like to. ANy editor is entitled to come in here and add or remove names, but just because someone does it, doesn't mean that it can't be questioned or changed. You just don't like my opinion - well, good for you. One more time, I didn't remove Single Malt Whisky Writer, I questioned it and I still do. Not because of who posted his name - I don't have a problem with who posts whose name, as I said before, as long as the name is verifiable and notable by some criteria. (The overall sense on Wikipedia seems to be that people shouldn't add themselves to pages - should wait for some independent person to do so - but I actually don't necessarily agree with that, when the addition is justifiable, as I said a few times here. But that's just my opinion.) I said what my criteria are, I asked for what yours are. I left him in hoping other people would express an opinion. I am also inclined to remove the restauranteur, if the best you can come up with is that he's notable to his class - to me that doesn't make a person notable. Anyone else editing here may agree or disagree, and may remove him or reinstate him. And I hope we would have a conversation here on Talk about it so it doesn't become a stupid edit war. That's why I usually post my reasons for removing or editing text.
I don't know what your problem is - you're the one who seems to think I'm the arbiter, not me. I'm just editing as I see fit, and explaining it. You're coming in here under more than one IP address (your last comment being from 24.131.10.223) and changing my comment heading and threatening to remove my comments. You could have added your own heading above your November 4 comment, and/or you could have sent me a note on my User talk page, or an email, or posted a note here asking me to change my heading. One more time, changing someone else's stuff on Talk is not ok - this is the one place on Wikipedia where people do have a right to have their words left alone. I did nothing even close to posting someone's phone number or personal info or libel or anything remotely like that - I mentioned a name that had been posted in the article by you, just like you did when you said, with her name, that you thought Melissa Schorr was a vanity post. No one deleted your note - you are free to - but you had better not delete mine. Would you like it better if I redacted my posts to disguise his name? I'll do that right now. But oh, I see you had no problem using his name in your posts when you saw fit. Hmm.
Get over it, you're the one escalating. Tvoz 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edleville murders

This is a serious event in bxHS history. It is especially relavent today as the 45 year no-disclosure agreements have come to an end and more information should surface soon. There is no reason not to include this event in the history section - it is both notable and encyclepedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.20.156 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 June 2006.

If you think so, you're going to have to provide some citations for the information. Anything controversial, including hushed-up murders, needs to be verifiable before it can be added to an article. Until then, it's just a rumor or your own original research, and Wikipedia doesn't allow those. RossPatterson 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


FWIW, my siblings and I have a 55+ year affiliation with the school and I have absolutely no idea what this person is talking about. If someone does, I'd like to read about it if it can be verified. Tvoz 04:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a current Bronx Science student, researching the Edleville murders. I have gathered very little, mostly from this page:

[1]

"Under Dr. Taffel's guidance, .... It was later this year that the infamous Edleville murders occured in the stacks of the new library, school officials quickly covered up the incident and the students were forced to sign a no disclosure agreement or face explusion."

I plan to ask some faculty on Monday about this issue, and research it further. Will 68.199.20.156 please provide some contact information? I am planning on doing an article in the Survey about this issue, as well as completing this section of the Wikientry. I want to speak to you, and learn more about this incident.--Rocketrye12 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that the about.com page is just a mirror of an earlier edit of this wikipedia page. As I said above, my three siblings and I attended Science thru the 50s and 60s (and we lived within walking distance of the new building, so surely this kind of news would have traveled to our community) and none of us ever heard of anything remotely like murders in the library stacks - it is preposterous to think that the school could "cover up" murders by having students sign no disclosure agreements. There were, in fact, police investigations into things like murder back then too. In fact it is laugh-out-loud funny. And I don't think there are any faculty left at the school who were there in 1959, so lots of luck. If you find some verifiable information, I'm sure we'd all like to see it. Best wishes. (By the way, my memory doesn't stretch far enough about this one thing: are there even "stacks" in the library in which to commit murders? And how many murders are we talking about? Two, three?) Tvoz 03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Also curious why Rocketrye12's account disappeared so fast. Hope it isn;'t another incidence of ... the Edleville murders.... Tvoz 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have spoke to some faculty and NO ONE has heard ANYTHING about this incident. I spoke to one teacher in the English department who entered the school in 1962, who never heard anything about any incident in the library. As anyone in Bronx Science will tell you, Bronx Science students (including myself) are not ones to keep things quiet at the behest of anyone, let alone their own administration. If an incident like this had happened, even with a 'non-disclosure agreement,' there certainly still would have been some inclination that this happened, let alone some sort of documentation. Again, an English teacher I spoke with entered the school in '62, and does not recall ever hearing about such events. There certainly are 'stacks' in the library, but certainly not Bodleian-style stacks where one could get lost, and...uhh...commit a murder. I have been searching the New York times archives, as well as obituaries from the time, etc, and I have come up with nothing. My research continues...as this intrigues me greatly. I am still awaiting some call-backs, but I expect this to turn out to be nothing.
My english teacher contact is getting in touch with some class of 1959'ers, as well as some '60'ers she knows. Call me crazy for taking such an issue so far, but it intrigued us both.
Just one question....what do you mean my account 'disappeared'? I haven't gone anywhere, I promise.--Rocketrye12 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just found something equally as interesting. Take the history of Bronx Science from [2] and compare it to [3]

It is IDENTICAL to the about.com article I previously linked to, with the 'Edleville murders' sections removed. This could mean one of two things: (1) The people compiling the school's web page recognized it as false, or (2) those compiling the web page did not want such information to be at the forefront of the school's history, because it happened.

Or, more likely, thing (3): The copy of this article at About.com was collected during the brief period when the murder claim was in it, and the copy at BXScience.edu was from a time when it wasn't. RossPatterson 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a Senior this year, with much affiliation to the IT/MIS department. The current webpage was compiled 2-3 years ago, and I will find out who was in charge of the literature. I am going to take up the issue with them, and try to get some answers. If the about.com page is a mirror of a former wikipedia page, and the Bronx Science page mirrors the about.com page, what's going on? Maybe things occured in the other direction.

The Edleville hunt continues....--Rocketrye12 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but if this is the way they're teaching research methods these days at Science, I am worried. Those are not the only two possibilities at all, and I am sure neither is correct. Of course it happened in the other direction. Don't you see - the about.com page is just a mirror copy of the Wikipedia page, at some point in time. The Wikipedia page apparently had been lifted from the original Bx Science history page - which, by the way, I am not happy to see and I think we need to look at the Wiki page now and make sure it isn't still plagiarizing the Science page, and if it is, significantly rewrite it. There were no murders. There was no cover-up. This is completely and utterly idiotic.
As for your account - on Sunday night Rocketrye12 was red, and clicking on it yielded an advisory that the acocunt didn't exist. I hope you weren't murdered. So, if you're a senior - how are those college applications coming? Tvoz 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
or maybe it was just no user page existed - hey, it was like 4 in the morning - I can't be held responsible. Tvoz 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: a few '59ers have been contacted. No incident like this never took place. No one ever signed non-disclosure agreements. There was no cover-up. I guess this issue is dead. (for now....)--71.251.24.160 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it April Fool's Day in the Bronx, I wonder? Tvoz 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes sir. You still never answered my question, though. Why did you say my account 'disappeared'? Anyway, i'll consider this issue dead for now. Besides, anything I found violates Wikipedia's "no original research" clause. Later, all. [4]--Rocketrye12 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, it's only original research if what you learn winds up not to have any on-the-record pre-existing sources. If you invest 1,000 hours chasing the rumor down and find a very rare and very expensive book that gives the details, that's just good detective work and perfectly legitimate for Wikipedia. Anyway, have fun regardless! RossPatterson 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feeder patterns

Can someone check this fact, "No New York City high schools have specific feeder patterns as all New York City public high school students apply to high schools."

Although the SSHSs may not have particular feeder patterns, I'm pretty sure plenty of "local" high schools in the city do have zoned districts they feed from.

I'd fix it -- but don't feel particularly authoritative on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimmithy (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 November 2005.

While digging for some ciations for Stuyvesant High School recently, I came across this as well. It is apparently true, although "local" schools have a preference for accepting their "local" students. I can't find the reference now, but I'd start hunting at http://www.nycenet.edu for the definitive info. RossPatterson 03:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I can't believe that it seems as though current Bronx Science students are vandalizing this page..... <sigh> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimmithy (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 March 2005.

Indeed. I happened to notice someone left a message when using Wikipedia to look something up for CompSci class. What do I find? Edit blocks, and warning after warning after warning to stop vandalizing pages. But I suppose anominimity gives anyone the courage to egostroke in the most pathetic ways possible.--167.206.203.14 15:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, now that I think of it, it might just be better to ban the IP from editing, to prevent people exploiting the school's internet connection to vandalize wiki pages. If it's a real edit, it can be proposed in the talk page, done through a real account, or just wait untill one is at their own computer.--167.206.203.14 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intel

bronx science is NOT the perennial leader in intel awards. Stuy had 19 semifinalists, more than any other state besides New York. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.143.165 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 May 2005.

First of all, he said a perennial leader, not the perennial leader. Second of all, Bronx Science has 50% more Intel and Westinghouse winners than Stuyvesant.PersonDude 02:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the above comment was an instance of nitpicking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.214.67 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 December 2005.
if you carefully consider the statistics, bronx sci kicks stuy ass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.203.14 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 15 March 2006.
Bronx Science had more intel winners than Stuyvesant this year, as in most years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.10.194 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 May 2005.
I heard that Reidy has terminated the Intel-Westinghouse project because Bronx Science has had a decreasing number of quarter-finalists, semi-finalists, and finalists. It looks like the today's Bronx Science is falling out with its past greatness.
~Class of '02 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.251.187 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 October 2005.
reidy is a stupid principal. everything she thinks she's doing that's "good" for the school is useless and retarded, and she doesn't deserve to teach here. and i bet a stuy person commented that; gosh if stuy's so almighty wtf is it so damn insecure? bronx science is a wayy better school considering we have less zombie nerds roaming around AND we manage to pull of better statistics than stuy. ppl only like stuy better cuz its in manhattan and has a pretty new building... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.203.14 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 March 2006.
It appears that comment came from someone in Toronto by their IP address (69.157.251.187 is toronto-HSE-ppp4300721.sympatico.ca). RossPatterson 04:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you are very, very wrong. I know that you are wrong because I myself am in the research class used to enter the Intel competition right now as I type. 167.206.203.14 19:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous editor

1. Why is it necessary to list another the school is near in the intro?

2. The transportation section is sufficient. Why do we need to attack various bus services? Is your word enough to "verify" they are bad services? Isn't this a violation of NPOV? Tfine80 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


I disagree the transporation section is too short and must be lengthened out to include valuable information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.6 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 December 2005.

Dude, using anonymous accounts will not help the situation. I'm getting tired of this again. It is not "valuable" to compare different companies, with a bias for one over the other. Also, Wikipedia is not a shopping and advertising service, and this type of section does not meet our standards. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Tfine80 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


There is no advertising going on. It's listing services that 50% of the school freshman and sophmores utilize. 205.188.116.6 06:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not designed to give partial advice to high school parents. You need to defend why these edits are appropriate in Wikipedia. Tfine80 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


who gave advice on it? it states price and the condition. those are facts. 152.163.100.6 14:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Listing prices is not Wikipedia's role. You will rarely find this on other pages. Especially about school bus services. This especially important because of the user, perhaps you, who was trying to attack "internal stability" at one of the companies. Tfine80 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Same user appears to be at it again, from, ah, I see it's in the AOL block of IPs. Annoying. Fwiw, they're also editing other NYC high school's pages, including Townsend Harris High School, Hunter College High School, and Stuyvesant High School, based on the time and style of edits (namely, indiscriminate reversions, clobbering a lot of more recent work in addition to furthering whatever agenda they've got). /blahedo (t) 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

This needs expansion. Compare this to the article on stuyvesant. --Shell 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I added now categories for expansion; please help fill in.

Gacggt

[edit] Quack

  • When Mr. Stark left in 2001, Mr. Galasso took over the reins for one term until Ms. Valerie J. Reidy, the target for the famous "Quack" scandal in 2005, and Assistant Principal of the Biological Science Department, was appointed as the first woman principal of The Bronx High School of Science in September 2001.

The "Quack" scandal is not as famous as some writers seem to think. Either it should be explained or removed. -Will Beback 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I am surprised the article doesn't mention the Quack scandal at all. Although I am not affiliated with Bronx Sci in any way, but as a teacher at another Bronx high school I thought that the scandal was an important event in the history of this famous school.

Another thing that is very annoying even to an impartial observer is that another school (not nearly possessing a similar clout, btw) is mentioned in the first lines of the article. Is that a subliminal advertising inserted by the people from this "competing school"? I don't think it should even be mentioned... - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.159.52 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 April 2006.

[edit] Which is more worthier

Do we really need the Queen bus route part? The "quack" article would far more intersting and worthwhile to read. -scotchMB

[edit] Academics, Clubs, etc

I just started these categories, so that folks can fill them in... my information is rather out-of-date, so it would be best if more recent graduates filled these in...

Gacggt 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't take the interminably long lists of sports and clubs, so I changed the format to at least take up less space. I wonder if someone currently affiliated with the school can verify that the list of clubs is accurate. Also have a question (below the template) for an administrator or anyone who knows:

Administrator: Is there wiki code to allow 2 columns on a long list? See specifically the clubs in this article. Thanks Tvoz 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep! I split it into three columns. There are three pieces of wikicode you use: {{col-start}}, {{col-break}}, {{col-end}}. If you need any more help, just drop a line on my talk page. Cheers. -- Merope 20:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborations, Colleges & Universities, Major Corporations

I don't understand these 3 sections - the links seem to go to the home pages of these institutions, and there's no explanation of what kind of collaborations exist between them and Science, if that's what is being suggested. Can anyone elaborate? If not, I think those parts should be removed. Tvoz 04:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand these sections either; none of these collaborations are explained - it just seems like a random list of universities and corproations. Given that Tvoz made the same point September 17th, I'll feel comfortable removing these sections if there is no justification by October 17th. Gacggt 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my guess is that there are special cooperative programs of some sort between the school and these institutions, but without explanation it is pointless. I'll see if I can find out more, but if not, I am with you, Gacggt. Tvoz 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)



Let me clarify this as best I can. As a Bronx Science student, I can tell you we have endless collaborations, many of which I cannot verify, but that I certainly can verify. I will go down this list, and give as much info about each (that currently appear on the wiki page)

NASA/GISS -- we certainly have a collaboration with nasa, as they used to sponsor some sort of learning program at the school. I hear rumors that once, our students talked to the ISS from the dish on our roof and through the distance learning lab. Is this true (or just a rumor I heard on my pre-admission-test tour?)

Mt. Sinai -- it is wrong to call this a "collaboration". I vote we remove it. As part of the research program, many students complete research within the Mt. Sinai center, but i wouldn't call it a collaboration. Students research in all institutions across the city, and it would be wrong to label them all as 'collaborations.' In fact, student's persue their own research opportunities, so a calling pre-existing collaboration downplays their efforts. I, in the research program for the past 3 years, have produced my original research paper with a reseach-fellow at the NAtional INstitute of Informatics in Japan. do we have a COLLABORATION with THEM?

JEwish heritage museum - yes, they help with the holocaust museum. my friend is the president of the museum at the school, i will verify this with him.

wildlife...YES

FIRST robotics-----no. We COMPETE in the First robotics competition, but in no way have a special collaboration. Robotics is a big thing at the school, I may expand on it somewhere...any suggestions on where?

Hennessy, through Alexander.........possibly. They support our robotics team and give various other portions of the school funding. I think it is fair to call them collaborations.

Hebrew Home for the Aged------again, this is a robotics affiliation. I (and some other members of the robotics team) volunteered in the summer to teach technology to residents at HHAR. don't call it a collaboration, but call it something else.

MEDICAL organizations ---- I cannot comment, because I do not know. I believe we DO have affiliations with them all, though.

As far as colleges & universities go, I can only verify the ones I know. Do not rule the others out! I think they are all accurate, but below are the ones I can explain:

Lehman college - students from science sometimes take courses at lehman

hunter college - the college now program gives free hunter courses to bronx science students

NCSSSMST - absolutely an affiliation. I myself attended the NCSSSMST conference in atlanta, last year.

Syracuse ----yes. the crime lab is Sycaruse @ bronx science

U Albany.-----yes. the university at high school program provides college credit for many of bronx science's advanced courses, simply by filling out a form, and paying money (of course) to UAlbany.

Corporations, are all yes.

I don't think this section is THAT confusing, simply the school does 'business' with many organizations repeatedly. Need any more clarification? just let me know. --Rocketrye12 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok, first, thanks for posting all of that useful info.
But here's the problem as I see it: it's good to know that the companies, organizations, and colleges, etc. are indeed involved in some kind of collaborations with the school, which is presumably why they were listed in the first place. So the information is likely true, but it is ultimately mostly a meaningless list (not confusing - meaningless) if we don't have some information about the nature of the collaborations, preferably with citations, and therefore why it is important to be included in an encyclopedia entry about Bx Science. So knowing that Con Edison, or Fordham University, or the Hebrew Home or any of them legitimately have collaborations with the school is good, but to keep them here we'd need to have something to say about the collaborations or we should incorporate the institutions' names into the sections that talk about the facility that they are collaborating with (like the reference to the Syracuse crime lab).
The lists just aren't self-explanatory, and Wikipedia editors have understandable problems with too many lists anyway, so this kind of list is particularly irritating and not useful. The links that were added are mostly to the wiki pages about the institutions - totally un-helpful on this - or to the main web page (e.g. www.fordham.edu) of the institution which typically says absolutely nothing about Bx Science or any collaboration. The Bx Science website similarly has no information other than to say there are collaborations.
I suppose the whole section could be changed to a couple of prose sentences saying that the school participates in a variety of collaborations with major institutions such as blah blah, preferably with an indication of what kind of collaborations we even mean - but listing them like this, without meaningful links or descriptions, to me makes no sense.
SO - it's not that I don't believe there are collaborations, and you have provided some confirmation of a lot of them - it's that it's not enough to say that they definitely do collaborate and then not say in what way. And bottom line - is this really important enough to be on the page? NCSSSMST and Syracuse are already on the page, as they should be. The link to "Columbia in the Community" mentions Bx Science, so we should work that in somewhere. I personally would love to have something about NASA, if we can find out where and what the collaboration is. If the Jewish Heritage group collaborates with the Holocaust Museum let's add that to that paragraph. And if any others do have identifiable projects, they should be incorporated as well. But the rest I think have to go if we don't have more to say than their names. Tvoz 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobels

I know that the Nobel prize winners are listed down below under Notable Alumni, but I reinstated reference to them up top as well by adding a short sentence to the first para which refers to the seven winners. Reason: the first paras are a thumbnail summary of what is discussed in the article in more detail; I think the fact that 7 graduates have won Nobels is one of Science's defining characteristics and as such should be mentioned up front and then in more detail down below.Tvoz 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Again reinstated sentence about 7 Nobels in the first paragraph, for the reason stated above. If others disagree that this is a defining characteristic of Bx Science that should be indicated right up front in the summary paragraphs, then can we discuss it here rather than playing edit games by removing text without either edit summaries or discussion on the talk page? Tvoz 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

After further consideration, I also added reference to Science's five Pulitzer Prize winners in that same first paragraph, for the same reason as the Nobels explained above, and added a link to the notable alumni section. This belongs in the first summary paragraph because again, these are defining characteristics of Science.

I also removed the sentence that said that Science's Nobels were more than Stuy and Bklyn Tech combined because I think: a) it doesn't belong in the first paragraph that summarizes the article; b) it especially should not come before Stuy and Bklyn Tech have even been mentioned because that's just bad writing; c) it is stronger to say, as we do, that no alumni of any other secondary school in the world equals this accomplishment, and kind of petty to add up Stuy and BT's prizes. This article is not supposed to be a pissing war between high schools for bragging rights, it should just state the facts about Science. Anyone want to talk about any of this? Tvoz 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment to say that I think you're doing the right thing. Besides, as we discuss occasionally at the Stuyvesant High School article, this article is about this school, not the others. And blatant puffery will get deleted quickly enough anyway. RossPatterson 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ross - we're all partisan, of course, but have to try to let the facts speak for themselves that Science is the superior school {smile]Tvoz 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Prainog: I was wondering if you could share the data that you used to determine that Science would tie at 21st in Nobels if it were a country - I'm curious as to how it slipped from 10th in 2003 to 21st in 2006, unless of course 10th was inaccurate. Statistics are not my thing, but something doesn't quite make sense to me in that - a lot of other countries suddenly went from 6 to 8? I love this statistic, as it really captures the special nature of the school's alumni (I'm one, but obviously not a Nobel laureate in math), but I did want to be sure that it is correct. Thanks very much - you can answer me on my Talk page User_talk:Tvoz or by email or here - whatever you prefer. Tvoz 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the table on the Nobel Laureates by country page, 7 laureates is the number shared by India and Spain, which are tied for 21st. I'm assuming that 10th was inaccurate in 2003, but I don't know what source. I figured that there would be at least some curiosity about this, which is why I included the reference when I made the change.
--Prainog 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion through standard e-mail address

password: develop

I added the e-mail suggestion feature upon realizing that wiki pages cater very little to the bulk of lay viewers who just want information on the school. Included in this large category are prospective students who stumble upon the page just by searching "bronx science" in google, including those who will also search "stuyvesant" as well. This makes the wiki page one of the most prominent of promotional sites, as it plays a vital role as an easy source of information and first impression. The orientation of this feature on the page still is flexible, in terms of position, syntax, and professionalism.

Moreover, the open e-mail collaboration will create a sense of community among the editors, and perhaps attract others.

What is immediately noticeable is the lack of elaboration to major facets of the school. I initially introduced the bullet format in mid August to jump start expansion in prose. Significant development has taken place since. However, rather than simple listing of everything constituting Bronx Science, we should elaborate on what makes the institution special.

Lack of graphics is another major problem. High resolution imagery is something that prospective student will look for, something that the Stuyvesant page provides in abundance. I am working on a more attractive version of the logo, as the current on appears blurry.

Bxsstudent 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to improve the article, but I don't think that's the way to do it - that's what this Talk page is for. And having a notice posted on the top of the page, I think, distracts from the page and would turn off potential readers. That note can be placed on this talk page, and in fact I'm moving it here, pending the outcome of this conversation. My opinion on this is that I don't think expecting people to go off Wikipedia to discuss this page is practical or sensible. If people want to, fine. But it shouldn't take away from our efforts here, and the note shouldn't be pasted on top of the article. All pages are under development on Wikipedia - that's the nature of the beast.
Actually, I don't think the article is in such bad shape now, although it absolutely can be improved. For example, a question was posed by me above a while ago about the "collaborations" section which makes no apparent sense. No one responded with information - only another editor spoke up who felt the same way I did. I assume there are some kind of collaborations between Science and these institutions, but there's no explanation, and most of the links just go to the vanilla front page of the other institution, where there is no mention of Science at all. If you are a student at Science, perhaps you can illuminate what these collaborations are with a sentence or two for each. Or maybe someone can contact the school and ask them. If not, let's take that stuff off until someone can make some sense out of it. Having an item "Cablevision" or "Fordham University" with no explanation of what they have to do with Science just makes no sense.
And personally I think the lists of clubs and sports are overly long and unnecessary; I did what I could to make them take up less space, but I'd like to know what others think about that. Why are we listing the sports teams? A few paragraphs talking about the role of sports at Science throughout its history and how it is now might be worthwhile, but a list of teams? Same for the clubs - althoug at least they give a flavor of what students today are interested in. But it's way long, and I don't really see the point. And I think the bus section for Queens students is just plain bizarre in an encyclopedia article about the school.
This is the point: Despite how people might use Wikipedia, we have to keep in focus what the purpose of having an article is. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional brochure. It is intended for the public at large to learn about the school, not as a publicity piece for prospective students or a competition with any other school. It should give an overview of the school's history, which it does nicely, a sense of where it is today and what it offers to students, but maybe not in such detail, and interesting facts about the school. The alumni section is priceless, and gives an important dimension to the page. What a rich and varied group they are, and I'm sure there are many who can be added to it. And probably there are aspects of the school that have not been included, that should be. I hope people with knowledge of the school today and in the past will look at the page with a critical eye and offer suggestions here, and/or go rright in and make improvements as some of us have. In my view, we can do that right here, on the page and in Talk, like we do all other wiki articles. If you want to go off and talk somewhere else, that's your right, but you won't have the input of other editors who are working here - so perhaps you can post on this talk page a summary of what it is that you discuss so the rest of us can evaluate and reach consensus.
As for graphics, yes, absolutely we need more and better quality. (But not because Stuyvesant has better ones that will attract prospective students.) GLad you're doing something about that.
What do others think? Tvoz 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the paragraph posted on the main page that I removed pending the outcome of this discussion: "This page is under development. All comments, ideas, and suggestions are encouraged and welcome. Please e-mail to bxswiki@yahoo.com."

Bxsstudent - you're right that "collaboration will create a sense of community among the editors, and perhaps attract others". However the correct and accepted way to do that on Wikipedia is to hold the discussions here, on the Talk page. If you want to have an off-Wikipedia discussion, that's fine too, and if you want to encourage folks to participate in that discussion, the Talk page is certainly an appropriate place to post such a notice (which is why I moved it here instead of simply deleting it).

I hope you take Tvoz's point to heart - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of promotional brochures. Those who've come before you, including quite a few Sciecne students and alumni, have done their best to maintain Wikipedia's official Netral Point of View position, and what you'll find is that attempts to puff the article up and make Science look good will be pruned back ruthlessly - it's the Wikipedia way, the community simply doesn't tolerate biased articles any more than it tolerates vandalism.

Tvoz and Bxsstudent - if you're interested in significantly improving the article, consider nominating it for a Good Article collabortion of the week, or requesting a Peer Review. Either one will attract a cadre of serious editors who will help you find the problems in the article, especially when compared to other articles like it. But be ready - sometimes when you ask for help, you get more help than you'd like. Stuyvesant High School didn't go through Peer Review, but it did go the Good Article route, and it was nominated and review three times before it successfully became a Featured Article. You might find it instructive to read the comments that those reviews provoked - you'll find the most recent review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stuyvesant High School, and the other two linked from the top of that page. Another excellant school article is Hopkins School, and it went through all three processes (and of course left the breadcrumbs on the Talk page). One good place to start is What Wikipedia is not, which tries to detail many of the things that Wikipedia is not. You'll find that this article already has a few strikes against it there, but they can be fixed.

And seriously, Bxsstudent, welcome aboard. If you care about Science and this article, please contribute to making it better! RossPatterson 15:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE: Removing someone's comment from talk page is not ok

After posting my last comment I went back to look at history on this page and I see that the following section that had been created by Ross Patterson earlier this evening was removed by Bxsstudent.

[edit] Under development

I just moved the following comment from the top of the article page to here. I assume Bxsstudent doesn't know a lot about how WikiPedia works, and that it wasn't a malicious act. RossPatterson 03:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is under development. All comments, ideas, and suggestions are encouraged and welcome. Please e-mail to bxswiki@yahoo.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bxsstudent (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 October 2006.

I am starting to feel not as gracious as Ross was in his post - it is NOT ok to remove someone else's comments on the Talk page. Ever. You can disagree, even heatedly - you can complain to an admin if you think someone is being abusive - but you do not remove a comment that another editor posted. And you certainly don't remove someone's comment and then revert your own change that the other person was objecting to. I suppose Ross may be right and you don't know a lot about how Wiki works, and you weren't being malicious, but I would recommend that you see how others handle disagreement here and follow suit, because right now it's late and I'm really not feeling so charitable. Tvoz 09:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research

User:Bxsstudent made a good suggestion - that we include a section called "Research" or something llike that, where information about the school's library could be placed, and any other research resources that the school has. I removed the heading for now because it has no text - but encourage anyone who ha current information or can obtain some, to reinstate it with some text accompanying it. Perhaps someone would like to call or go into the school library and get some information, or perhaps some current students or recent grads have this information already. Tvoz 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by the Research section in Student Opportunities, I was planning to post information on the extensive and voluminous original research taking place in such subjects as mathematics, science, and social science. Student projects from these programs are submitted to competitions, including Intel. The library is also an important facet of the school, contributing to the academic resource needs of its students. I am looking forward to allocating that information with an overall expansion of Facilities and resources.Bxsstudent 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Bxsstudent - thanks for posting that library info - is it a direct quote or a paraphrase of the article you referenced? If it is a quote, it needs to have quotes around it, with the reference as well. I sent email to the library a few days ago requesting information about their holdings, but no one responded. Tvoz 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
And I think that if we get more inofmrtaion about the library we might break it out into its own section, as you suggested. Tvoz 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated blanking of sections/vandalism

User 168.122.208.138 has repeatedly blanked sections or otherwise vandalized this article today. Can this be stopped?Tvoz 00:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or WP:AIV. Probably the latter would be most helpful to stop just that IP user and the former to stop all edits by anons. Cbrown1023 00:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Normally, though, you would add a warning template on the user or anon's talk page first but I just did that. Cbrown1023 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - let's see if that does it. Tvoz 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for candidacy

The Science article is not yet ready for featured article candidacy. As suggested by RossPatterson, nomination is a good approach to collaborative development and improvement. The recent featuring of the Stuyvesant on the front page should also grant the Science article extra attention. However nominating it for Good Article collaboration is a better choice for now, and will lead the path to featured article.Bxsstudent 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article isn't ready for featured article status yet.Can the nomination be withdrawn?Tvoz 19:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

dude didn't even complete the process not listed on candidate article just have to delete the shit

[edit] Relisted back for GA

This article has not been reviewed for GA. User:Qazws11 passed this for GA without proper review. Based on inputs from other reviewers in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Bronx_High_School_of_Science, I relisted back this article in WP:GAC for a normal GA review. — Indon (reply) — 09:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for information input

As has been said earlier on this Talk page (see "suggestions", "Collaborations", etc above), we need information input to make this article more comprehensive - I've talked above about sports, clubs and the "colllaborations" section which are mostly unannotated lists. I think we need input, details, about these aspects of the school so that we understand their role -someone to take a shot at writing them up - and others will edit and rewrite for style and syntax.

So for Sports, for example - does anyone know any history here? Sports that Science teams have excelled in (there is a note about girl's swimming and PSAL on the list) in the past, old or recent, or now? The list of teams can be a link, but we need information to turn into prose.

Same for Clubs - although I think the list provides some insight into the breadth of interests, it isn't at all clear if all of these are current or active, and more importantly, what do they do? I made Academic teams and Publications subheads under Extra-curricular, because that's what they are, and surely those can be fleshed out a bit more. Again, we need some information input, and then can work on refining and polishing the text which is easy.

And my personal favorite for speedy deletion - I raised it months ago, another editor concurred, asking for information about what these collaborations are. We have links for universities and corporations to the university's main web page or wiki page. Totally worthless. If they have a program with Science, as I assume they must, then can someone provide the information as to what those collaborations are. If no one comes forward on that I'm removing the ones without info and they can be reinstated easily enough if information is forthcoming. Maybe the way to proceed on collaborations is to write up the ones we know something about as examples of the kinds of collaborations Science participates in, and then add to it as more information comes in. If someone can present some facts, that would be a great help. The Science web page, last time I checked on this, was also without details on this.

So - in my opinion, as I have said on this Talk page before, what's most needed to improve the article is more information. And more citations and references - those two things should go hand-in-hand. Tvoz 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failure

This article failed WP:GAC for these reasons: way too many lists, refs are a mess and not in a standard nor consistent format, solo years do not get wikilinked, several external jumps inside the body of the article, there should not be a space between punctuation and refs and refs come after punctuation, a good copyedit would help, explain things like "feeder patterns", why are the colleges and corporations listed?. Rlevse 17:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Some good points, several of which have been made here before (especially the collaborations part which I am going to remove). But while I'd like to see consistency across an article and throughout the encyclopedia, I hope that the placement of punctuation and spaces is not used to determine the worth of an article. Tvoz 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graduation dates

May I suggest writing these out as (for example) 1964 instead of '64? Eventually, the latter will be potentially confusing; already an issue for older institutions. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

good thought - I'll get on it when I have a couple of minutes. thanksTvoz 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

As noted above in Edelville murders by Rocketrye12, the text at [5] is an almost verbatim match to much of the History section of this article. Since BXScience.edu claims a copyright on the page, this section needs a major re-write or needs to be deleted. RossPatterson 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ross - I noted that above earlier today. This was the text when I started editing the page a few months ago - have to now go back and see how it got here. Tvoz 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to have been introduced in May 2005 - by a user who is not currently an active editor under that username. Some of History is not lifted from there - I did a lot of editing over the last couple of months on this article, and what I wrote, I wrote - but it likely still needs a rewrite, which I will take a stab at. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to distinguish research from plagiarism - I hope it was not a Bronx Science student who posted the copied material. Tvoz 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am confused. What do you mean by "it's so hard for people to distinguish research from plagiarism"? maybe you should discuss at an earlier hour, Tvoz :-) Are you suspecting that bxscience.edu pulled from wikipedia, or the other way around? --Rocketrye12 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're confused about, Rocketrye12, so I'll say it again, hopefully in a clearer way. I mean the other way around: I highly doubt that whoever maintains bxscience.edu lifted text from here; I suspect that whoever posted the original history section in May 2005 on Wikipedia simply copied it from the Science web page, which is plagiarism, not research. I find it disheartening when I see plagiarism, and especially so if I think there is a possibility that a student may have done it: it's pretty simple, really. Put text in quotes if you want to use it verbatim, and give citations. Or, re-write it based on the information you've gleaned from your research, in your own words. I'm not directing this comment at any specific individual, as I don't know who is responsible - I hope it isn't a Science student (or alum or faculty member!) because I hope that a Science education includes being taught how to distinguish plagiarism from research, and how to write without copying. I hope this clarifies what I was saying. Tvoz 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Editing Policy

I have a question. What change is too little to be discussed? Today, I added information about the Biology Journal and the Exposition to the Publications section. Was it wrong for me not to propose the change first? I am, in fact, holding this years Biology Journal right in front of me. Also, for example, I am planning on 'revising' the poorly written sentence on Wifi, as well as other minor mistakes and abbreviations (Phys' Ed' I will expand to Physical Education). Is is wrong for me to make such changes without 'telling'? I am trying to improve this article the best I can, and, being a senior at bronx science, I am trying to ensure that everything is as accurate (and as eloquent, hahah) as possible. There are so many dedicated, and educated people contributing to this article (how may of you are Science grads?), and I don't want to step on any feet. --Rocketrye12 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: the wifi sentence is NOT poorly written, however I am going to add to it a little. My apologies, I thought it was bad, but then I read it CORRECTLY.--Rocketrye12 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - you certainly do not have to discuss every change before making it - big or small. We'd never get anywhere. But I find it's a good idea if I'm making a major change to a page to take a look at history and the talk page, to see if this is something that is under discussion, or has been debated and consensus reached, or if I'm inadvertently contributing to an edit war, etc. I don't always remember to do that, so sometimes get caught in something I didn't intend. But then I would go back and revert my own change and add a note to the talk page discussion, just to not ruffle feathers beyond what any edit does. So - no, don't feel you need to clear changes - especially so if you have good source material - but keep an eye on whether it's a hot item that other people have been discussing. Your edit may provoke some controversy, but that's the way it works around here - the Wikipedia advice is "be bold". Every edit can easily be undone and nothing is lost - that's what's so great about editing here.
As long as I have your attention - can you, as a current student, shed any light on the ridiculously long and unexplained "collaborations" section? I am about to remove most of it, because it's been questioned numerous times and no one has come up with any response - but maybe you know more about it. Right now, the links are to wiki pages or the main page of the instituion - no explanation of any Bx Science collaboration - it makes no sense. Thanks for any enlightenment. (Yes, I'm a graduate, from about 100 years ago.) Tvoz 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
will do. See: collaborations--Rocketrye12 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Bronx Science wasn't around 100 years ago. Bxsstudent 09:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
NB:It wasn't a typo, it was irony. Tvoz 09:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intel finalists

To keep the page factually accurate, I deleted the sentence asserting Bronx Science having more than twice the number of finalists as any other high school. It is probable that Stuyvesant caught up quickly after the new building and the accompanying take of primacy among the Specialized High Schools. Bronx Science's web site itself is currently undergoing major revisions. In any case, according to [60 Years of Science] page 73, Stuy ranks second with 92 finalists. Bxsstudent 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

glad you checked that Tvoz 09:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history

I did a rewrite of the history section- and then lost it as my browser crashed while I was attempting to save the text here. I am not happy. Will try to recreate my deathless prose, but not tonight. Tvoz 09:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great, Tvos. Sorry for your lost effort! It may be better to type long entries in notepad first.

I have been taking some pictures of the school these past few days, and I will be adding them to various sections I want to expand on some 'special projects' or 'special stories' that really define science. the stuyvesant article has some things about their 'cyclotron.' I heard some things about other projects at science, a while back. I'm going to check on those.Tvoz 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, I want to move us in the direction of 'Good Article.'--Rocketrye12 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, me too - but do others agree with me that we should wait before nominating it again? the article has been proposed prematurely before, and we seem to lose momentum when we get shot down - in my opinion, it's not ready for prime time yet, although it's getting there. anyone else? Tvoz 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help with image formatting!

I recently added a picture of the Survey publications room in the publications section. I am afraid it's formatting has gone haywire, and i am unable to fix it. Can someone help? maybe its too close to that picture on the left 'artificial resistance to penycillian'?--Rocketrye12 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

it actually didn't look too bad on my mozilla browser, but I moved things around a bot to try to get a better overall visual look for the page Tvoz 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
i'm using mozilla as well, but i have a widescreen----1440x900. that might have thrown things off. anyhow-- You're version look much better.--Rocketrye12 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate Team

Throughout Bronx Science's history, the Debate Team had been one of the school's most important assets and one of its greatest achievements. I have noted the absence of elaboration on the team and its rich history a long time ago, hoping that someone will add it. Also since Rocketrye12 is taking pictures around the school, the Sadikow Memorial Room 203 should be among the top in the list. The view from the corner of the inside wall and the wall adjacent of the teacher's desk will be ideal. The picture of the front of the building with the mosaic is copied from the Bronx Science website and lacks in resolution. It will be best if that is also replaced.Qazws11 03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Qazws11 - could you write something about the debate team? If you could get something up in the article, or here on the talk page, even in rough form, I'm sure others can refine it - information is what's needed. As for the Sadikow room - I'm not familiar with it, so can you explain? Again, the article is very much in need of information which can then be polished.
also on photographs - is the planetarium visually interesting? If so, can someone upload a photo? Tvoz 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


hey, yes, i'll take pictures of whatever you want. I don't know much about the Sadikow room, but I know where it exists. To the best of my knowledge, the room is nothing special----just some trophies in the back and a banner up top. The outside of the room has a gold plate---which reads 'richard b. sodikow memorial forensics center.' I took the class - forensics english - that is held in this room. Sadikow's name was not mentioned even once (a shame, if he is a notable person). Tomorrow, if I can, i will try to get into room 203 and get some pics of that room. Could you yourself elaborate on the 'rich history' of 'a long time ago'? I am curious myself. I am good friends with the captain of the debate team, so i can maybe get a writeup from her.--Rocketrye12 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tvoz--about the planetarium---it is truly quite a sight. A Zeiss star projector was installed in the late 60s, and it is incredible. I am in the astronomy/astrophysics class this year (yes, I know, i'm all over the place). and we go up there every few weeks. I'll get some shots of it when it's empty (i'm on the newspaper, so it won't be hard to get access). Either today, or tomorrow. If you have never been up to the planetarium, you should definately make it a point to return to Science and see it. Its amazing to turn down the light pollution--and see our own galaxy in the dome above you. Tvoz, as an alumnus, the administration would welcome you back into the building to check things out. We could meet and get some great stuff for the wiki.--Rocketrye12 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall that there was a world-class star projector, but unfortunately at that time students weren't allowed to just go up there unless they were in a relevant class. I was always sorry to have missed seeing it. I think a photo would be great for the page, and any info you can gather so we can expand that mention. THis is the kind of raw material the page needs, I think. Same for the debate team. As for the Sadikow room, I really have no idea who he was or why it's notable, but someone must and it may be very relevant to the page. I knew Stu Elenko, so it was easy for me to find info and write up the section on the Holocaust center. I hope we can do the same for other areas of interest in the school. Next - the greenhouses and the weather station! One other idea - does the Survey have a logo or banner that would be visually interesting, and if so can you ask about the possibility of including it, copyright-wise? Just an idea. Tvoz 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
time permitting, I will get photos of the greenhouse and weather station as well. I'm meeting bxsstudent tomorrow to re-take the auditorium photo, and get some content for the debate section. The survey does have a visual, which is basically the circular Bronx science logo (revised) with Science Survey written in it. As far as copy-restrictions, I would be able to get permission to use the logo (even in writing, if need be). requests for authorization would probably be routed through me in the first place, so i (almighty) would authorize it. Checking with our advisor....of course. Would a partial scan of a representative front-page be welcomed? (i.e. top quarter or top half of the front page)?--Rocketrye12 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


There's no rush, Ryan - whatever you can do, whenever. These are just ideas - who knows what will actually work best on the page as pix. More information for text, though, I think is important. Tvoz 04:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bxsstudent and I took lots of pictures. I will be sorting them out soon, but i have a lot of work to do before I can upload them. They will be up...soon......--Rocketrye12 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] robotics team. ACADEMIC TEAM?

someone added the robotics team as an academic team. I removed it, because I don't think it belongs there. So, because it is not featured as prominently, i added a robotics section. take a look.--Rocketrye12 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/o/Talk%7EBronx_High_School_of_Science_7ec1.html"