![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page needs a Piedmont High logo, although I can't seem to find a good quality one anywhere.-- SanjayPatel 23:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/buttons/phs.jpg
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/buttons/scot_man.jpg
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/phsdev/images/new_scot_man.jpg
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/phsdev/images/scot_rotate.jpg
One of these images might be good for use in the article, or provide a nice base. ;) Thunk 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Over this repeated statement: The school is run by an extremely liberal and openly partisan administration, receiving much criticism from the community. At the most basic we need to see verifiable references from reliable sources that substantiate the elements:
The usual places to look are online newspaper archives and the archives at news.google.com. Several examples of a google news archive search: [1], [2], [3], [4] Keep in mind that personal experiences of this bias/criticism are original research which is insufficient for encyclopedic inclusion. Zedla ( talk) 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am assessing this article as B / Mid class for been well structured and having a good collection of references and pictures. I am assessing it as Mid importance for well known academics, alumni, and nationally recognised contest. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The statement of the school's "extremely liberal and openly partisan administration" ( [5]) is blatant POV pushing. The source given does not mention this; it is a map of voting trends in Alameda County. If an RS can be found to justify this statement, I would not necessarily be opposed to it, as long as it were worded along the lines of "Piedmont has come under criticism for its extremely liberal and openly partisan administration..." and explains the significance of this claim, e.g., biases in curriculum, corruption, etc. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should worry about the location after we reach a consensus on wording. Is the new wording fine with everyone. It's okay with Kuyabribri. I think the location is good because, truthfully, most people think of liberalism as they hear Piedmont High School, kind of like San Francisco and Berkeley. That's what it's kmnown for! Thanks.
If an RS can be found to justify this statement, I would not necessarily be opposed to it, as long as it were worded along the lines of "Piedmont has come under criticism for its extremely liberal and openly partisan administration..." and explains the significance of this claim, e.g., biases in curriculum, corruption, etc.
— repost of my comment above, with additional emphasis
BTW I would like to (sarcastically) applaud the civility of the last IP user that edited this article before it was semi-protected, for vandalizing my talk page. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well the IP is [[User:]](logged in as well as from various IPs) who has been doing this ( could you please just log in), both here and at Piedmont Unified School District and Talk:Piedmont, California#A Liberal City?. It's probably best if we continue any further discussion at the city's main article to avoid repeating ourselves. - Optigan13 ( talk) 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Piedmont High School (California). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)