Talk:Dwight Morrow High School

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

Point-of-view tag[edit]

While the resource section provides verifiability for some of the problems facing the school, the tone is a bit excessively POV, and some of the statements are not verifiable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attended the school and graduated from it a few years back. The school does face these major problems. From what I understand, violent incidents have dropped of to near average numbers since I graduated, or maybe even below it. Though other problems from the school have increased such as construction and overcrowding in some classrooms. As well as HSPA (NJ states tests) passage rates were only around 20% in 2004, though passage rates have increased as of now. Dmhsgarduate2006 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to include new data and new facts, as well as to be more neutral. Dmhsgarduate2006 20:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response The edits made by Dmhsgarduate2006 are a good start, but I think it still needs some work. Here's a sampling of some of the statements that are not sourced and probably not verifiable:
  • "Many parents feared to send their kids to this High School. Majority of parents in Englewood and virtually all parents in Englewood Cliffs even to this day send their kids to private schools. "
  • "Dwight Morrow got worse with frequent protests, overcrowded classrooms and underqualified teachers."
  • "Many current students and teachers have expressed feelings at times that there seems to be very little hope that Dwight Morrow High School will ever improve in the future."
I realize that you are very familiar with the school, but we still have to follow Wikipedia's rules for verifiability; in other words, statements that you (and others who've graduated from the school) feel are "common knowledge" have to be backed up with sources. It's not good enough to simply qualify statements via "most people say...", etc.
The links in the resource section provide verifiability to the schools problems in general. Here's an example from one of the articles:
'These are the contrasts noted in the state's report issued just before the holiday last week: '
'Academies@Englewood: longer school day, rigorous and engaging core academic curriculum, technology, upgraded classroom materials and equipment not available to Dwight Morrow students, climate reflecting high expectations, inviting classrooms. "Students are spirited and proud of their school and opportunities."'
'Dwight Morrow: "a climate of high expectations, support and standards is not evident," lack of classroom equipment and technology, in many classes students are either not engaged at all or are engaged in below grade-level assignments, students arrive late to school and to classes.
This article (whose source is a state report) is a good source for highlighting differences (and problems). It's better to stick with verifiable statements like that versus "everyone says"-types of statements. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement from a local assemblyman, John Rooney in the artcile, "white students from Englewood Cliffs, the district trying to end its obligation to send its students to Dwight Morrow, feared for their safety at the heavily minority institution." Comes from the following subscription only site, you can see some of the artcile at this address, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1P1:22442449&num=1&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ASR%3AResult&ao=&FreePremium=BOTH Dmhsgarduate2006 20:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged sentences needing sources in the article and made a few copyedits, mostly for wording. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is were I got the sources from, http://www.geocities.com/ebgold/ On that site it states, "There were more violent incidents reported at DMHS than any other school in Bergen County in the 1991-92 school year, and test scores remained painfully low.188" With 188 being the reference number cited in the page. I have added otehr citations, though the page may need major clean up. Dmhsgarduate2006 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


comment: This article still seems very biased, and agenda-based. It seems as though its fully against the Academies@Englewood.

Extra Paragraph[edit]

Before you add anything into this article Dwight Morrow High School, please show some sources. There appears to be no sources cited in what you said. The rest of the article is based entirely on newspaper reports that have appeared in the bergen record and other newspapers over the past 15 years. All of it can be cited in the papers. If you would like to add that paragraph, please show a source. And please leave out POV statements such as, "they use their books as doorsteps." Thanks. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion section of the paper. Everything must be cited and have sources. Dmhsgarduate2006 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my sources, I am a neutral observer to the events at Dwight Morrow and Academies@Englewood. The statement regarding the use of textbooks as doorstops is not a point of view, it is a fact that is verifiable by numerous teachers and students. And, if you really are a graduate of Dwight Morrow (and didn't drop out like many students do,) then, you are a biased source. Am I correct in assuming that people adding things or deleting things are supposed to be neutral and unbiased? Also, you stated that this is not an opinon section, however, some sources cited in this article are from the Opinion section of the Bergen Record. Dmhs This comment was unsigned but left by user DMHS on his or her talk page.
The point is that everything in wikipedia must be verifiable from a published source. The bergen record is a published source. If what you stated can be found in a published source, then you can cite that material. But if you are the primary source and the information can not be verified, then that can not be included in the article. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable by a published source. Dmhsgarduate2006 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV/history[edit]

I seriously doubt that the DMHS/AE conflict is the only important part of Dwight-Morrow history. In fact, this article doesn't reflect any aspect of the school aside from the funding issues and AE conflict.

Example of what else besides this whole BS could be important:

  • The tower was used for outside scenery for Sabrina the Teenage Witch
  • The date the South Building was built (or even mention how there are two buildings on the campus)
  • Name of the yearbook
  • The name of the principal
  • The status quo of the literary magazine
  • The arrows on campus lawn
  • Conflict with the lockers and the doors
  • Any prominent clubs on campus like the Tower Players or the Dwights
  • Any annual campus events

Also, this article does not mention Academies @ Englewood by its name. It doesn't describe what it is. It only refers to the Academies (capitalized, just so you know) as "academies" or "A@E."

This article seems like a random outlet of anger towards A@E. No interesting tidbits that I didn't know - Instead of being an article, it's only a very biased history and random outlet of anger and bitter feelings towards the social injustice. And that paragraph about social wrongs should be deleted - they haven't officially made that statement just yet.

I graduated from the High School before the academies were even established at the school. My username says 2006 only because I created that username in 2006. I graduated from that school a long time ago. So it would be impossible for this to be an outlet off anger towards the academies. I have not even seen the DMHS campus in years. The only parts included in this article are the parts that aroused the most interest from the local media. This high school has been in the Bergen record well over 3,000 times since 1995 and the number 1 reason is for the desegeragation issues. This high school has even made it into the NY times a few times mostly because of the racial issues. Once there was a huge three alarm blaze at the school, back in 2000 or 2001 and this high school was featured on all major network's news in New York City. Some networks focused more on the 'racial' issues facing the school than the actual blaze. This high school is known for its social and racial problems though out northern New Jersey. That is why this article focuses on just that. But i will include the extra trivial stuff that you mentioned though. Dmhsgarduate2006 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for Vandalism[edit]

This article has been repeatedly vandalized by pro Academies @ Englewood students. The most recent case was that somebody wrote, "We deal with stupid niggers and spics" in the future plans section. That person was refering to how Academies @ Englewood students have to deal with Dwight Morrow students. That same person came back a few moments later and removed the notable alumni section for some reason.

Earlier, other pro-Academies @ Englewood people had written stuff to degrade Dwight Morrow High School students. Those of you who are vandalizing this page, please stop. Dmhsgarduate2006 10:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts required regarding Fires[edit]

The sentence regarding fires and vandalism tends to single out Dwight Morrow only. There are no more or less vandalism and fires at Dwight Morrow than there are at other high schools in Bergen County (which I may add go unreported so as not to damage the reputation of the high school and/or community.njlincolnlion 19:15, 30 June 2006 {UTC) so if they go unreported, how is it that you have knowledge of them?

Neutrality of this article should be marked as disputed[edit]

This article CLEARLY does not express both sides of the Dwight Morrow/Academies@Englewood conflict. I have to ask the admins, please mark this page with a "The Neutrality of This Article is Disputed". All this article seems to be is not an informational page about the school itself, but only about how DMHS students are "mistreated" or whatnot without even showing both sides of a conflict. Either A@E's position on the "Current Situation" should be shown, or the page should be marked as "Neutrality Disputed" ANTIbias 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

There's a September 2008 neutrality dispute tag on the article but no talk page post since two years prior to the adding of the tag, or more than three years from the current date. If an interested and knowledgeable editor feels the article is unbalanced or non-neutral as it currently stands, please discuss your concerns so this dispute can be resolved and the tag removed. Abrazame (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I added a link to the Dwight Morrow Black Alumni website today but it no longer appears. Was the link removed? Or did I add it incorrectly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkarend (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dwight Morrow High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dwight Morrow High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue copy and paste move[edit]

This article was about Dwight Morrow. It was copy pasted to Academies at Englewood and copy pasted back to create Dwight Morrow. This has to be fixed which Wikipedia administrators say to do [1] or else there will be copyright issues. Even the people talking in this page are talking about Dwight Morrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.16.106 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up as best can be done with situations like this, I think. Page moves that change the article scope are generally bad moves. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

boosterism and puff[edit]

students from Englewood Cliffs, who attend as part of a sending/receiving relationship.

not important for the lede

Newman, Maria. "Englewood; Reasons for Hope in Englewood", The New York Times

this is an example of the excessive detail in footnotes we don't need.

The school is named after Dwight Morrow, a businessman, politician, and diplomat who lived in the city; Morrow was also the father-in-law of aviator Charles Lindbergh.

there is too much boosterism here.

In the pages of The Record, columnist Lawrence Aaron contrasted the Academies@Englewood, with its "longer school day

excessive detail

Englewood's African American community feels the city and the board of education has put its minority residents second with this move

the whole community feels that way? Who says?

Dwight Morrow High School has two buildings

and not one reference. I propose cutting it all, also the pond info, if no cite is forthcoming.

The Dwight Morrow High School Maroon Raiders compete...

This is laundry list material, should be reduced by half.

Joseph Armental is the school's principal

he's not significan enough for an encyclo.

Popular culture

this is trivia (all about films) and should be cut {{User:Melchior2006|Melchior2006]] (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The details of which students attend the school are directly relevant to the school and belong in the lead as a fundamental explanatory detailabout who attends the school. The school is named for Dwight Morrow and all the article does to describe him is to "neutrally state the facts", which is what the essay at Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism says. The details about criticism of the Academies and the resources available to students in the rest of Dwight Morrow are critical elements in an article about the school and the piece by Lawrence Aaron expresses that issue. Using a technique called "copyediting" a few words were changed to make it clearer that it's some people who feel that way about the division. Sources have been added about the school, its campus and the pond. I am intrigued about the claim that the details about athletics "should be reduced by half" as I have no idea how to pick exactly half to address your concerns. Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools is clear that the one person to be listed is the principal. Details regarding use of the campus is relevant and thoroughly sourced.
I have looked through your edit history and I see many, many examples of similar mass removal of content to other articles, but I have been unable to find articles that demonstrate your expertise in creating articles, adding sources and addressing issues in articles as required by WP:PRESERVE (an actual English Wikipedia policy) before mass deletion of content. Could you please point me to some of your editing history where you have done any of these things so that I can best understand and learn from a few model articles? Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The laundry list of sports matches and trivia are excessive. Take a look at this explanation, as @GuardianH (a very experienced editor) already pointed out to you. Then there is the problem of you trying to own not only this article, but many others like it. As to my qualifications as an editor, you are welcome to browse through my 10,000+ edits on the global Wiki project. But even if I had made only one edit, in Wiki-Land that makes no difference. It is a community effort. Let's do it together, and not block efforts at improving quality. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since no improvements were forthcoming, I made some changes to the section on athletics. In my edit caption, I quoted from this WP advice page: "can include any achievements that are particularly relevant to the school's reputation, provided that only the highest achievements are listed such that the article does not give undue weight to minor achievements. Individual awards should generally not be listed." This is a start, but still lots to do. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely and totally false. There have been multiple changes made to the article to address the very criticisms and allegations made. Your charges of WP:BOOSTERISM have been rebutted multiple times and you have refused to address these responses, both here and on your talk page. Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice is an essay, just like WP:BOOSTERISM, and just as you did with BOOSTERISM, you have clearly failed to read what it says. The details that you removed are state championships; only "the highest achievements are listed" exactly as that essay discusses and exactly as in the section you quote. The material deleted deleted here is about the school's sports teams and their highest-level state championships and includes no minor achievements. All of this is sourced and discussed at length at the article's talk page.; there are no individual awards listed. Furthermore, the essay gives ample latitude to include minor achievements as long as they are not given undue weight; even though there are no such "minor achievements" listed, even they can be included. It is becoming more and more apparent that you simply do not understand the Wikipedia essays you cite and that the only goal here is to find an excuse to delete content from articles. Alansohn (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the championships you cite are often very far back in the past, like 1950s etc. They would be relevant for an article about "Athletics at DM High School", but they are examples of excessive details here, in the main article. I just made some more edits about ethnic assertions, unsourced claims of racism, quotes with no references at all, that sort of thing. The boosterism I removed in my last edit is easy to identify when it comes to "boosting" alumni. Don't take it so personally: most articles need improvement in some manner or another. It doesn't belong to you. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have offered dozens of claims, and when the allegations are rebutted you only dig even deeper for an excuse to delete content, without any evidence that you are addressing the issues you claim exist.
You, yourself quote from an essay that you, yourself call an "advice page" that doesn't mention anything about the dates or timing of athletic accomplishments. These are accomplishments at the highest level, as you describe, and there is simply no expiration date.
The WP:BOOSTERISM essay you frequently mention and use as an excuse for deletion of such things as year of birth and descriptions of alumni says "in a nutshell: Do not praise an academic institution; describe it using neutral language and verifiable facts." and "Allow the facts to speak for themselves and let the reader decide." None of the material is "praise [of] an academic institution". Your latest edit claims that you "cut unsourced assertions. In alumni section, removed boosterism and years of birth". WP:PRESERVE, a policy that you refuse to follow, says that problems should be fixed, and you refuse to either add the sources or tag for citations. WP:BOOSTERISM says nothing about descriptions of alumni, nor have you offered any example of how listing years of birth and death for Janet Jacobs or describing in neutral terms that she was a "shortstop and center fielder who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League" is covered by WP:BOOSTERISM or that it serves "as a shrine to its various accolades and superlatives" to the school. Again, please pick any specific claims in this article and point to how WP:BOOSTERISM is violated. Pick one example so that I -- and other editors -- can understand what you believe to be a violation of this essay that justifies deletion of content. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that sports events at a high school level from 50+ years ago are insignificant for an encyclopedia article about the school. If it were formulated in some other way, and cut to be concise, I could imagine retaining it. But other editors should chime in on this. The WP pages won't have specific guidance in cases like this. As for the boosterism in the alumni section, it has to do with picking out parts of the person's bio. This is subjective, selective, trying to make the person and therefore the school look particularly important, but let the readers decide that. We certainly don't need dates of birth here. As for the unsourced assertions about ethnic groups, the attraction of "better" students/teachers, and so on.... do you have any references for that? And: why not just stay factual and lay off the pathos? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's see. Anything from more than 50 years ago is too old to be encyclopedic? I'm not sure where you get that arbitrary cutoff.
Descriptions of alumni are typically generated by copying text from the lead sentence / paragraph of the individual; all of the material copied is a neutral description of the individual. Nor can I understand how a description of a notable has anything to do with WP:BOOSTERISM. Please, please, please, I am pleading with you to point to anything in that essay that says that a neutral description of an alumnus constitutes boosterism about the school itself as described in the essay Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. As I pointed out about Janet Jacobs, what's lost in the obsession to delete content is a meaningful context about the alumni, including who they are and when they lived or died. Certainly there's none of that dreaded BOOSTERISM in birth or death dates? They don't need to be kept, but there's certainly no policy mandating their removal, nor can I figure out why anyone would waste their time to remove them.
I didn't write the section about demographic changes and in the past I have made significant changes and added multiple sources to address your concerns. You again removed content without any effort to keep encyclopedic content, as required by WP:PRESERVE, something which I beg you to read and learn from in your editing and which might convince you to give up your persistent mass removal of content. In this edit, I made significant changes to address the issues you raised about demographic changes and the efforts by Englewood Cliffs to sever the sending relationship.
I left your changes to notables completely unchanged, for now, to give you an opportunity to explain how WP:BOOSTERISM applies. I, for one, am baffled. I look forward to your explanation. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The boosterism in garnishing references to alumni consists in seeking out certain "glamorous" or "attractive" achievements but this is highly subjective and one-sided. John Winkin, for example, was "baseball coach at Dwight Morrow, scout, broadcaster, journalist and collegiate athletics administrator who led the University of Maine Black Bears baseball team to six College World Series berths in an 11-year span." This is just too much promotional verbiage. I then made the mistake of looking at the Winkin article. So much unsourced, promotional material, amazingly irrelevant. Awful. These kinds of hagiographies are an abuse of Wikipedia. I will do my best to clean it up a little. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to summarize. Despite repeatedly claiming that this article was rife with WP:BOOSTERISM and tagging the article as such, Melchior2006 has been unwilling or unable to point to any part in the essay Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism that is somehow being violated, other than claiming that neutrally worded descriptions of notables are somehow improperly focusing on "certain 'glamorous' or 'attractive' achievements" that are purported to be "highly subjective and one-sided". We have also discovered that the problem may well be with the articles for the notables themselves.

Bottom line: Even Melchior2006 can't explain what the issue is in this article with "Boosterism" or what part of WP:BOOSTERISM applies. Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more changes just now and removed the tag. The article has been deboostered. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shaking my head at the complete and utter inanity of dealing with an editor who refuses to define how WP:BOOSTERISM, an essay about abuse of superlatives in articles about colleges and universities, applies here at an article about a high school, but is how somehow able to claim that through their actions the article has been "deboostered". Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boosterism tag[edit]

Melchior2006 has added "Boosterism" tag to the article, making the claim that the "article contains academic boosterism which primarily serves to praise or promote the subject and may be a sign of a conflict of interest." Unfortunately, this editor has offered no examples or evidence of how Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism#Problems_and_solutions applies here on the talk page, has offered no specific examples of such violations, nor made any efforts to address any alleged "boosterism". All of the claims have been addressed above or on the editor's talk page. Unless the editor who applied the tag provides the necessary evidence, the tag will be removed. Let's give it a day. Alansohn (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of notable alumni[edit]

Peter Coyote should be added to the list of notable alumni 2601:85:C680:5490:1E9:C701:67C0:6B50 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dwight_Morrow_High_School&oldid=1208248373"