Talk:The Pembroke Hill School

Schools 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Kansas City

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Untitled

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and the consensus was keep: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Pembroke Hill School

Acceptance Rate?

The article includes the statement that "The school boasts an acceptance rate of approximately 66 percent."[1] Could someone clarify? Does this mean the school accepts 66% of applicants, or that 66% of its students are accepted to college, etc (probably not the latter due to "usually matriculates..." in the next paragraph.) Why is this a "boast"? The citation is to Peterson's Guide to Private Secondary Schools..but I don't have access to that publication. Thanks! --Josh Powell (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. The school accepts 66% of applicants. Its college acceptance rate has been 100% for years. The word "boast" has been changed, per WP:ADVERT. 65.28.9.8 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAT scores

I question the neutrality of the statement "unreported in order to preserve academic image" with regard to the average SAT score (on the side bar). I don't doubt that there may truth to it, but I do doubt that that is the school's official response.

I agree. The person who had written that seems to be a current student at PHS, and put false information in the "notable alumni" portion (Homayon Ghassemi, according to a Google search, was a stduent at PHS last year, and is not a "Renowned Classical Scholar"). I have reverted the information and removed the NPOV notice. 134.193.105.140 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye- I didn't even notice the "Homayon Ghassemi" part Feline Nursery 15:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory descriptor

65.28.31.189 seems to have a problem with any mention of the Ivy League in the introduction to the article; he also deleted the replacement descriptor denoting "prestigious" colleges, which was lifted directly from the MICDS article. Interestingly, the descriptor that PHS sends many of its graduates to Ivy League colleges has been a part of the article nearly since its inception several years, and to date none of the many contributors have had a problem with it - presumably because to most Kansas Citians this simply seems obvious. Instead, however, to placate 65.28.31.189, "statistical proof" seems necessary. On average, PHS sends approximately 10% of its graduates to Ivy League colleges, some years more (some years FAR more) and some years less. Without question, this rate is far higher than any other secondary school in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Accordingly, I have replaced the descriptor. Let it be. This new Wikipedian is its sole protester, and the protest is unwarranted. Could there be an agenda behind the protest? 65.28.2.218 12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH, 65.26.95.117 deleted the above entry. That is a BIG Wikipedia no-no. Please don't do it again or you will have to be reported. Thank you. 65.28.2.218 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the quarrel continues

It appears as if 65.28.2.218 is affiliated with Pembroke Hill. It appears as if the information obtained was obtained by some sort of an employee or alumnus/ae. The Ivy League clause seems to be a point of vehement contention? I find myself asking why? Unless the aforementioned wikipedian was somehow deeply affiliated with Pembroke Hill, then why the dispute? (As a Kansas Citian I can attest, Pembroke Hill's Ivy League placement is not outstanding, in fact other schools in the area such as Rockhurst and Shawnee Mission East also have numerous graduates attend Ivy League schools. So I must, in this instance, beseech 65.28.2.218 to reveal his or her affiliation with the school. If there is none, then why such a conflict? Could there be an agenda behind the protest?

All I ever suggested was that you see the discussion page and respond accordingly. It took you two months to do so; there was no "quarrel" until then, just you violating Wikipedia rules. Now this can be properly discussed. No other school in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area, be it Rockhurst High School or any school in the Shawnee Mission School District, regularly sends 10% or more (some years FAR more) of its graduates to colleges in the Ivy League. There is no agenda here, only the pursuit of accurate representation (and as far as "agendas" go, I find it interesting that this seems to be the only Wikipedia page you have ever edited). The sentence was lifted directly from the MICDS article (MICDS, John Burroughs School, and Pembroke Hill being the only schools of their sort in Missouri). Interestingly, the MICDS article (after a similar debate) now says "prestigious" four-year schools. Would you prefer that this article's phraseology be changed to that? 65.28.2.218 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question....

Funny, you never answered my question? Are you affiliated with the school?

65.26.95.117, you ought to type "65.28.2.218 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)" at the end of your posts in order to sign and date them. That's Wikipedia protocol, too. Obviously you have very little experience with Wikipedia. By using an anonymous IP address, I am ensuring that I don't have to reveal anything at all about myself. Therefore, I choose not to. This is also per Wikipedia policy. You did not respond to my contentions above. You are not discussing this matter in an manner consistent with Wikipedia policy. If this continues I will have to refer the matter to an administrator. You refuse to enter into a proper discussion with me on this. You instead insist on having a discussion about "me," which I refuse to do, as is my right. Therefore, under Wikipedia guidelines, your edits constitute vandalism. Either enter into a proper discussion and respond to my response to you (and sign it, too), or I will refer this matter to a Wikipedia administrator. Until then, I have reverted your vandalism of this article. 65.28.2.218 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable

Really don't want to answer that question do you? I guess that seems only logical in your case, for if you chose to your loudly proclaimed credibility would be somewhat diminished now wouldn't it? In tripping all over yourself to immediately issue a virtual "no commment" (With more than enough circumlocution) you have only helped to illustrate my point.

I am allowed not to reveal personal information. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia discussion pages are all about. They are not for discussing the authors, but rather the edits (and prospective edits) to the articles. If you wish to continue to edit this article, please respond to my good faith response to you above. Because you refuse to discuss the accuracy or need for your edits, and refuse to answer my point, instead insisting on discussing "me," your edits are vandalism. Also, PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! To do so, put four "tildas" (i.e. four of these things --> ~) at the end of each post. Thanks. 65.28.2.218 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since you're new to all this, here are some Wikipedia policy pages that you might find of interest. Help:Talk page, Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Deflection!!! ^^^^^^

I am not sure what that means. Please stop vandalizing this page, and please sign your posts. Thank you. 65.28.2.218 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a large proportion of Pembroke Hill students go off to Ivy League colleges... This year it's at least five percent, a much larger number than the percent of total next-year college students going to Ivy League colleges... It would be stupid and dishonest to remove that statement from this article. 24.163.244.140 16:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Phsrendering.jpg

Image:Phsrendering.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Phathletics.jpg

Image:Phathletics.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pembrokehill.JPG

Image:Pembrokehill.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of unflattering information

User 64.218.107.110 has been blanking the information about the 1997, 1998, and 1999 state basketball championships (and the resulting nationally-publicized scandal), as well as the information about the infamous 1988 "High School on Easy Street" article. All of that information is relevant to the subject of the Pembroke Hill School, comes from reliable sources which are accurately cited, and is not original research. Blanking that information simply because it is not flattering to the Pembroke Hill School violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 64.218.107.110 (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Pembroke Hill School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Pembroke Hill School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720062342/http://www.pembrokehill.org/page.cfm?p=933 to http://www.pembrokehill.org/page.cfm?p=933

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]