Talk:The Stony Brook School

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Schools C‑class Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Davidhickey (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Untitled[edit]

This school is not mormon. It is Christian. However, being a Christian is not a requirement to attend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.247.14 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View[edit]

This article currently looks like an advertisement for the Stony Brook School instead of neutral coverage of the school. Please justify your reason for getting rid of the "Recent Controversies" section. RisingStar (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks no more like an advertisement for this school than the other school page articles, such as Philips Exeter or any other prep school. The purpose is to give a sense of the history and culture of the institution to the many alumni and people who have crossed its path. The "Recent Controversies" section cited as its source a website that is factually unreliable and claims as its source a one-sided account of a small number of people with exaggerated and personally motivated ambitions which do not represent the feeling of the institution or the overwhelming majority of the alumni and faculty. Davidhickey (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the purposes of this article is "to give a sense of the history and culture of the institution to the many alumni and people who have crossed its path". However, another purpose of this article should be to give an unbiased overview of the school to the potential applicants, potential students, and their parents. It may be true that "Restore the Brook" is an unreliable source, but it is true that the Board of Trustees attempted to change the Platform of Principles to disallow the majority of the world's Christians from serving the school, and it is true that many people, not just the people who maintain the website, opposed the proposed change. (How else do you explain the fact that an unusually high number of faculty resigned after the 2009-2010 school year? You probably know more about this than I do, but their resignations seem to have been caused at least partially by this controversy.) Parents of potential students would appreciate reading about this controversy; alumni who had not known about this controversy would appreciate reading about it. If the school released a statement about the proposed change, I would have considered using the statement as the source, but my search returned no such results. You are welcome to change the wording of the "Recent Controversy" section, but I believe that a proposed change to something as significant as the Platform of Principles, one of the foundations of the school, deserves a mention in the "History" section, especially since its effect would have been considerable.

Also, I believe that the potential applicants and potential students have the right to know that not all listed AP courses are offered every year and that students are required to go to chapel four to five times per week. Without the additional information that you deleted, some people will be misled into thinking that all AP courses are offered every year or that chapel attendance is optional. RisingStar (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not posted any replies after 3 days, I will assume that you agree with me and will revert your edits. RisingStar (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism[edit]

One of the principles of WP in WP:NOT is that WP may not be used for promotionalism . A list of colleges that accept the graduates of the school is generally regarded as promotionalism, pure and simple, and not acceptable. What other purpose has it? The general guideline is that a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release and include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students or supporters --that sort of content is considered promotional. Please do not restore it.

I noticed the above discussion. There's another even more important principle here, WP:V, as explained by WP:RS. All controversial material must be justified by reliable sources, which in this context means 3rd party independent published sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material posted on the internet, or material from the school, or an alumni or student or faculty group. I do not see such sources for the material on the controversy. The school's principles as posted by the school is a RS for such uncontroversial material as what the principles are at any given time, but drawing inferences from them is WP:Original Research, and we do not do that here.

I suppose I should also remind people about WP:COI. People with a conflict of interest should post requests for changes on this talk page, not make the edits themselves unless they are utterly uncontroversial. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

Scribd is not a usual source, as anyone can post anything there. I removed a section depending on it. I strongly urge that it not be replaced. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:ABOUTSELF? RisingStar (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reliable source that says that the Board of Trustees considered changing the Platform of Principles. Now the only purpose of citing the April 2010 Declaration is to support the article's claim about what the authors of the declaration believed. In this case, the Scribd user who published the declaration also published many more documents about the school, and it is very unlikely that the user put in the effort to forge so many documents. In addition, people can claim to be who they are not on social networking sites, but under similar circumstances, citing social networking sites would be allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF. Therefore, I concluded that it would be OK to cite Scribd in this case.

Also, the reason why I added a section about this controversy was because it seemed to me that the article had a pro-school bias, and I wanted to make the article more neutral. Since it is one of the goals of Wikipedia to be as neutral as possible, I don't think that I have a conflict of interest. RisingStar (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was not OK. WP is based on published sources, not what parties to a dispute say and publish on their own. Even included the sources from both sides doesn't suffice, because neither of them may be what an unbiased observer would say, and including them requires such a source to interpret them. The rule is WP:PRIMARY. Sometimes there is no reliable published material that refelects a conflict, and the inevitable result is that we do not cover it. If the conflict should be reported in a well-known reliable magazine, or newspaper, then we can cover it based on what that source says. I am acting here as an administrator, and I warn you that if you restore it without the consensus of neutral editors you will be blocked. I recognize the effort you did go to in including at least the primary sources on each side, or I would have already blocked you. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You would have blocked me for ONE reversion? Would that have been sufficient evidence that I would continue to "disrupt" Wikipedia? (Note that the reversion on May 9 was in response to an unexplained deletion by The Stony Brook School's IP address.) RisingStar (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment November 2013[edit]

Giving a C class assessment, though could easily reach B with a bit of work. Requires references on information likely to be challenged, e.g. "In the past two decades, new and upgraded facilities which have included three new residence halls, a stadium, an all-weather track, and a baseball field, as well six major renovations all totalling over $10,000,000, have raised the caliber of academics, athletics, and community life - the capstone of which will be the completion of a new dining hall and student center." and the Leadership Program. Prose is preferable over bullet points on Wikipedia (WP:MOS). Rename the 'Facts' section to 'Overview' and turn the bullets into prose. As always, refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines for tips to improve the article further. Hope that proves helpful. Good luck! Duffit5 (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Edits[edit]

Under "Athletics," winter track is said to be a sport for credit, which is untrue. I am now a college freshman (four-year alumna of SBS) working on this article for a class project. Winter track is the grouping together of fall cross country and spring track runners/athletes who want to continue training during the off-season. ^[1]

Under "Campus Facilities," John Rogers Hegeman Memorial Chapel (The Chapel) is said to be "the center of prayer and worship during the week and on Sunday mornings." With the changed schedule for the 2016-2017 year, Chapel is no longer held in The Chapel but now in Carson auditorium or Swanson Gymnasium. ^[2] Kcataudella (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the "History" section, the fourth citation includes a link to a page that is no longer found. This is in reference to Dr. Gaebelein's quote about the purpose of the school. ("The Stony Brook School Head of School Profile". Carter Baldwin Executive Search. Retrieved 2013-02-02.)

Also in the "History" section, the Middle States Association of Colleges and School's website does not include any information about the Stony Brook School, though the wiki article claims that it does. ("The Stony Brook School Profile". Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools Commissions on Elementary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved 2012-12-25.) The Cum Laude Society's webpage is also no longer found. ( "Cum Laude Society Chapters" (PDF). The Cum Laude Society. Retrieved 2012-12-25.)

The citation for "SBS Facts" should be updated, for the citation reads that the info. came from 2014-2015 when the wiki page and Stony Brook School website both say that the information was taken from the 2015-16 year. (SBS Facts (2014-2015 School Year)". The Stony Brook School. Retrieved 2015-03-10.)

Alum Aaron Belz's profile is no longer cited to a useful source, for the page for Mr. Belz's information cannot be found. ("Aaron Belz staff profile". The Begger Blade. Retrieved 2012-12-25.) The same goes for James Boice ("James Boice Biography". Tenth Presbyterian Church. Retrieved 2012-12-25.) and Lars Brownworth (Lars Brownworth article).

Kcataudella (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Teams and Schedules". The Stony Brook School. Daniel Hickey. Retrieved 13 September 2016.
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stony_Brook_School