Jump to content

Talk:Stuyvesant High School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleStuyvesant High School is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 2, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 6, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 30, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 6, 2012Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article


Further criticism

[edit]

There is a lot of positive info on Stuy on the page, however the school has its downsides too. To name a few:

Stress Cheating Rumored opposition to current principal Teitel Criticism of Teachers Oversized classes (35 I think)

Just to name a few. I think there should be some criticism of stuy added on there.JDH82793 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are claims that can be made of any school, are they not? Alexguitar594 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it can't be done though. If you find WP:RS with such information about Stuyvesant, it could be a worthy contribution to this article Alexguitar594 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arson

[edit]

I think I'll get started on an arson section. I'll probably start research tomorrow. Anyone have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myachimantis (talk • contribs) 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup: Keep it encyclopedic. When you're writing, ask yourself whether someone who was never associated with the school would find it to be valuable information five years from now. If you can't say "Yes,", it's probably too marginal to be in the article. Personally, I'm not convinced the topic makes the grade, but give it a shot if you want to. RossPatterson (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuy Mascot?

[edit]

I'm not sure what Stuy's mascot is, but calling a historical figure (Peter Stuyvesant) the school's mascot is rather comical. Maybe the field just doesn't belong in the infobox.

Any ideas? Level Crossing (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. In my day (1970s), he was referred to as "Pegleg Pete", the football team was called the Peglegs, and there was a huge portrait of him on the main staircase to the second floor of the 15th St. building. As we learned when that building was researched for landmark status, the school isn't named for Peter Stuyvesant (but rather "as being reminiscent of the locality"), so he isn't the school's patron. "Mascot" actually sounds about right to me. RossPatterson (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student Diversity?

[edit]

I note that Hunter College HS has a problem of lack of student diversity. (While students do expensive prep classes to get in.) Does SHS have the same problem? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there published sources which discuss either aspect? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]

I see several problems with this article: there are several [citation needed] tags, several very short paragraphs; dubious lists ("Other publications" and "summary of floors"); unsourced segments ("SING!"); and URLs within the article text ("In popular culture"). All of this should be addressed if the article is to stay FA; otherwise, I will send it to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some phrases that might also be construed as promotional. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reads "Prior to 1999, Stuyvesant did not accept female students." I was in the school prior to 1999 and there were plenty of female students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.216.147 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism which has been fixed. Chris857 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Review

[edit]

This article has now been listed at Featured Article Review. Concerns expressed by User:TenPoundHammer include:

  • Very many portions of the article are unsourced.
  • The article's structure is very sloppy, with loads of very short paragraphs and standalone sentences. A major copy edit is needed. (For instance, nearly every sentence in "History" begins with "In [year]…".)
  • Dubious lists ("Other publications" and "summary of floors") that are also unsourced.
  • Entirely unsourced segments ("SING!").
  • "In popular culture" is a mess of trivia.
  • Another editor also raised concern that some of the text seems promotional. I tagged at least one section ("strength in areas such as math and science").
  • I also see a very high number of primary sources.

Editors are invited to address the issues in order to prevent this article from being delisted from FA.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking

[edit]

I added (only subsequently to find it deleted) the fact that Stuy was the nation's top high school for some 70 years—that is, until magnet schools proliferated and the demographics of New York City went straight into the toilet and Stuy (to attend which one must live in NYC) could no longer compete with schools that draw from upper-middle-class Jewish/Chinese/Indian neighborhoods. I resent it bitterly when folks who consider themselves "editors" freewheelingly delete such critically important material because they find it inconvenient from the political correctness stance. It's equally unfortunate that there are people in this world who don't realize that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Tsk, tsk. These same people think nothing of crossing the street when they don't like "the looks" of the crowd approaching them, despite the obvious fact that "the looks" are clearly racially motivated. Alack, these people will grow up one day. 73.49.1.133 (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. Find sources and write neutrally. It's not that hard. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stuyvesant 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stuyvesant 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stuyvesant 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stuyvesant 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stuyvesant 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

[edit]

Whilst copy editing and doing other work on the article, I added the templates {{lead too short}} and {{copy edit}}. They were promptly removed by epicgenius with the edit summary "removed tags that are obviously not actionable". Oddly, the same editor immediately proceeded expand the size of the lead by at least 50% with the edit summary "remove more tags per WP:CITELEAD; also remove unsourced trivia". That does not, however, address the need for copy editing – something which is just as "actionable" as increasing the content in the lead. While I have done some work on it, it is clear that there is more to be done. Accordingly, I have restored {{copy edit}}. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I assumed that it had already been copyedited.
But if you are going to add {{Copy edit}}, at least explain what needs to be copyedited so someone can make the changes accordingly. It is a community practice to do so, though it is not a policy. Leaving it in with no explanation is not actionable because it is unclear what needs to be copyedited. epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm, RossPatterson, Niffweed17, Abulanov, Y, and ElKevbo: Pinging editors who were involved with the FAC process and/or significant article contributors who have been active on Wikipedia recently. There is also a problem with sourcing issues, which I am trying to fix, but this request for copyediting is going to take some time. epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving it in with no explanation is not actionable because it is unclear what needs to be copyedited. I don't know that it would have been worthwhile to specify every detail that required copy editing as issues abounded throughout the article, which I know you can see from the copy-editing work that both you and I have done throughout the article in the past day. (With all due respect, even were you unaware of the particular issues requiring copy editing, that does not make the tag "obviously not actionable". And I still fail to see how {{lead too short}} was "obviously not actionable", considering you immediately took action.) As {{copy edit}} was removed without explanation, I have restored it as "this request for copyediting is going to take some time." 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you should just list the main things that need to be copyedited. I have gone through the article and done a first round of edits already. If there's a specific phrase or phrases you have problems with, you can just edit it. There is one thing we agree on, though: there are a lot of problems in the article. I just deleted a lot of irrelevant info. epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging a 6000 word article with {{copy edit}} isn't actionable. Neither, for that matter, is asserting that the article is full of problems. This article was in essentially the same state before this round of copy editting as when it successfully passed a Featured Article Review in late 2012. There have been a variety of section movements and small improvements, but it is basically the same text. I agree that it could be improved - most articles can be. But I would agree with epicgenius that it isn't obvious what any of us might think is bad in those 6000 words. Actionable criticism is a good thing. The two FARs that this article went through and the three FA nominations all produced good criticism and improved the article. RossPatterson (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

As parts of a few of my recent edits appear to have been removed by epicgenius, I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page.

  • A {{citation needed}} tag was removed from the sentence Each November, about 30,000 eighth- and ninth-grade students take the three-hour test for admittance to eight of the nine specialized high schools. in the lead with the edit summary "copyedit history section; also remove unsourced". Despite epicgenius' previous suggestion, WP:CITELEAD does not exempt material in the lead from requiring a reference where information is not referenced elsewhere in the article.
  • A {{full citation needed}} tag was removed from the sentence In 2006, Robert Ira Lewy of the class of 1960 made a gift worth $1,000,000 to found the Dr. Robert Ira Lewy M.D. Multimedia Center. with the edit summary "trim, reorganize". I'm not sure how a reference to a newspaper article that includes neither the author's name nor the year of publication constitutes a full citation.
  • A {{verification failed}} tag was removed from the sentence One of the largest clubs at the school is the Stuyvesant Model UN club. with the edit summary "nope".
  • {{Citation needed}} tags were removed from the following sentences with the edit summary "nope":
  • Stuyvesant offers clubs, publications, teams and other opportunities under a system similar to that of many colleges.
  • The large number of clubs at the school is due to Stuyvesant's relatively free policy of "student rule".
  • Most clubs are entirely student-run, requiring only a faculty advisor to maintain their existence.
  • Key Club International's branch at Stuyvesant was founded in 1990.
  • A {{citation needed}} tag was removed from the sentence It [the school newspaper] contains twelve sections: news, features, op-ed, arts & entertainment, sports, photography, art, layout, copy, business, humor, and web. with the edit summary "another disruptive tag because it is cited by the reference right after it". Firstly, to what other "disruptive tag[s]" are you referring, epicgenius? Secondly, the citation for the following sentence discusses departments of the newspaper operation, not sections of the newspaper. And I should know – I was the one who added that reference just yesterday.

Could you clarify why this is, epicgenius? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK.
  • A {{citation needed}} tag was removed from the sentence Each November, about 30,000 eighth- and ninth-grade students take the three-hour test for admittance to eight of the nine specialized high schools. in the lead with the edit summary "copyedit history section; also remove unsourced" A reference was added to the body. — epicgenius 00:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
I don't see any reference to the length of the exam in the body. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now there is. epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see any reference to a three-hour exam in the 115-page document you cited. Could you include a page number? The closest thing I saw was a two-and-a-half-hour exam being referenced on p. 18. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, it seems you did include a page number. As I'm certain there's no reference to an exam on p. 5, I'll indicate as such. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the title of the work, the author (if applicable) is the most important part of a citation. It indicates from whom one is getting the ideas referenced in the article. So I fail to see how it is "not needed". Moreover, working from your invented standard, why was {{full citation needed}} removed given that there was no year of publication? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the previous two bullet points: No, the only thing that edit did was remove {{verification needed}} and {{citation needed}} tags with the edit summary "nope". Why would one remove the tags without removing the paragraph itself? And I'm not clear on what "nope" is referring to in this context. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the edit summary I looked at the tags and thought, "nope, these tags are too closely spaced and they could be considered tag bombing". And yes, I did remove the paragraph. I removed everything after the sentence ending in "under a system similar to that of many colleges". I then cut the "Academic teams" section and moved it to after the sentence I just mentioned, after condensing it, of course. epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I did remove the paragraph ... I am aware that you did ultimately. Nowhere has it been suggested otherwise.
I looked at the tags and said "nope, these tags are too closely spaced and they could be considered tag bombing". Which tells us that the tags were not, in fact, removed "Because the entire paragraph was removed." Rather, the removal of the paragraph was a later decision. So if the number of tags was the concern, why were they not replaced with {{refimprove section}}?
This seems to be becoming a trend:
  • You removed {{lead too short}} and {{copy edit}} on the basis that they are "obviously not actionable". The same day, you went on to double the length the 99-word lead (in a 90+ KB article) to 199 words and, along with me, engaged in fairly serious copy editing throughout the article, showing that you were aware that both tags were most "actionable".
  • You removed a {{citation needed span}} tag around the phrase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics–focused liberal arts "per WP:CITELEAD" despite the fact that that fact was not referenced in the body of the article. When I pointed that out, you removed the phrase altogether.
  • You removed {{citation needed}} from the school colours in the infobox despite them not being referenced in the body of the article. It wasn't until later that you decided to comment them out.
  • You removed {{citation needed}} from the claim that the school is fifth best in [U.S. News & World Report's] 2012 list of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics schools "per WP:CITELEAD" despite the claim being in the body of the article. It wasn't until later that you chose to remove the phrase altogether.
  • After {{unreferenced section}} was applied to the ARTISTA section, you – rightly – deleted the section.
  • You removed {{citation needed}} from the sentence Each November, about 30,000 eighth- and ninth-grade students take the three-hour test for admittance to eight of the nine specialized high schools. in the lead with the edit summary "copyedit history section; also remove unsourced". And despite the above back-and-forth, I still don't believe that it's sourced.
  • You removed {{full citation needed}} from beside a newspaper citation that contained neither the name of the article's author nor the year of publication with the edit summary "trim, reorganize".
  • You removed {{citation needed}} from the sentence It [the school newspaper] contains twelve sections: news, features, op-ed, arts & entertainment, sports, photography, art, layout, copy, business, humor, and web. with the edit summary "another disruptive tag because it is cited by the reference right after it" despite the fact that the reference after it did not apply to this sentence and the fact that I was the one who just added that reference so I know full well what is in it. When I pointed that out, you removed the phrase altogether. Having asked twice already, I have yet to hear back as to how the tag was "disruptive" or to what other "disruptive tag[s]" your edit summary was referring.
And that doesn't even include the other cases discussed in this thread.
What do these incidents have in common? When a tag is added to this article, your immediate response in each instance has been to see to it that the tag is removed, irrespective of whether the problem at hand was actually addressed. I have been attempting to make improvements to this article and indicate where further improvements need to be made in order that the article might come closer to meeting the featured article criteria, rather than merely taking the article to WP:FAR. Are you willing to work constructively to that end? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was working to fix the problems even despite your tagging spree. But despite your portrayal of my edits as all-unexplained tag removals, there are several concerns I have about these tags:
  1. On other articles, I've seen drive-by tags that end up never being fixed. When I saw your edits of the article on my watchlist, I noticed a lot of tags which didn't seem to be resolved. To me, this is problematic as the article will never pass a review in this state. It would have been better if you brought up these issues beforehand, rather than waiting for me to remove your tags and then nitpicking every single one of my removals. (Of course many of my edits had a few issues.)
  2. These are easy fixes. Like the SHSAT problem, which I just fixed by finding an updated handbook.
  3. This is a featured article, but these tags would never allow the article to even pass GAR, let alone FAR. I don't oppose the addition of tags, but it's a problem if you claim both that you want this to remain a featured article, and in the next edit, add ten tags to the articles. It could be that the info is unencyclopedic and doesn't need tags at all, but rather, removal.
  4. There's a reason why I wanted to send this to Featured Article Review. It's so these issues can actually be reviewed and fixed. But your attitude toward FAR makes it seem like an unconstructive process, which it's not.
So there's realistically two options here: resolve the tags and get rid of the material that can't be sourced, or bring this to FAR where the issues can gain more review. I don't know how you can have a Featured Article with tags on it, but if you say you can resolve all these tags, be my guest. epicgenius (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAR can be a scary place for folks who have helped build an article into an FA, but this particular article benefited greatly when it went there in 2008 and 2012. It might actually be time for another visit. Among other things, FAR requires criticism to be actionable, allowing the community to respond to clearly-identified issues in a verifiable fashion. FAR also avoids author-ownership and criticism-ownership issues - the discussion tends to be tightly focused and and rancor isn't welcome. If the end result is that the article can't be an FA anymore, well, that's how the cookie crumbles, we're all here to make WP great. But I doubt that's the state this article is headed for - it starts from a pretty good place. RossPatterson (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain how the tag was "disruptive" or to what other "disruptive tag[s]" your edit summary was referring. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge sections

[edit]

As per NotTheFakeJTP's suggestion to either merge Stuyvesant High School#New building proposal and Stuyvesant High School#School building or Stuyvesant High School#Original building with the aforementioned two sections, I am posting this here to gain opinions about this matter. I swapped the relevant info in the meantime. epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge Stuyvesant High School#School building into Stuyvesant High School#New building proposal - the "new" building is now 25 years old. The Stuyvesant High School#History section could use some modest restructuring after that, but I don't think it's a creative writing project so much as a small amount of heading and text movement. I would be willing to undertake both some time in January. RossPatterson (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I don't know how best to merge these sections, especially since "Mnemonics" and "Transportation" fit best in a dedicated subsection about the facility itself. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RossPatterson (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal about coronavirus

[edit]

I have removed the paragraph about the coronavirus closure. As this is a featured article, extra care needs to be taken when providing sources.

  • The first source is the op-ed itself, which is a primary source and needs a reliable secondary or tertiary source to back it up, per our No original research policy.
  • The second source, that the schools were closed, does not mention the op-ed at all. There are sources that mention the op-ed and the closure, but they do not say that the op-ed is the reason for the closure. However, this is what the paragraph was implying.
  • In any case, we generally do not mention temporary closures of a few weeks or months, similar to how we treat summertime school closures. epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2023 review

[edit]

I took a quick look at this article to check whether it's up to standard under WP:URFA/2020. Some things I spot:

  • A sentence or two about the pandemic is probably warranted in the history section.
  • The racial demographics are distinct enough compared to the school's region that they probably warrant a mention in the lede.
  • The coverage of The Voice seems undue, given that it seems the less significant publication compared to The Spectator. Not sure we need so much about its legal case in the '70s.
  • The "In the media" section is a single sentence and should probably be merged into the reputation section or somewhere else.
  • There's no administration/governance section, which is a comprehensiveness issue. I'd like to see information on things like the school's annual budget.

Hopefully these issues can be resolved to avoid an FAR. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"rizzler"

[edit]

Notable alumni include former United States Attorney General Eric Holder, physicists Brian Greene and Lisa Randall, economist Thomas Sowell, mathematician Paul Cohen, rizzler Janka Wilczysnki

There's no way "rizzler" is supposed to be there but I don't know enough about this school to know if that profession should be changed or if the person should be removed from the article. I just searched "rizzler" in Wikipedia and this article came up. Can someone who knows more about this article change that? PC36 þ (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my quote frame didn't work. What I was trying to quote was this: "Notable alumni include former United States Attorney General Eric Holder, physicists Brian Greene and Lisa Randall, economist Thomas Sowell, mathematician Paul Cohen, rizzler Janka Wilczysnki..." PC36 þ (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

For some bizarre reason, most of Manhattan's neighborhoods in the map showing Stuy's location are given in Czech or a similar language. Is this vandalism, or is it just some weird bug that's cropped up? Scrawlspacer (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School&oldid=1226394983"