Talk:Anderson High School, Lerwick

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anderson High School, Lerwick article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.
	Reasoning for assessment: Not much here and no references. Needs expansion and cleanup. Adam McCormick 06:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protection needed.

This page has been repeatedly vandalised by new users. I think that semi-protection must be placed on this page to prevent any more unnecessary vandalism from new users. The "controversies" section gives the school a very bad image which I believe is inappropriate to mention on a website that is viewed by worldwide users, I have deleted this section but it has reappeared by a new user because it "seems to note recent controversy" which is totally inappropriate and stupid to think that it is useful. I believe they could be sockpuppets in the near future and this is why I think that protection is needed for this page to prevent any more vandalism. SarahTHunter (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of sourced, negative information about the school is not vandalism, and semi-protection is not warranted in this content dispute. That said, there is an argument to be made that the article is giving undue weight to the conviction of one teacher in 2019 for offenses against students. Also, putting that information in its own dedicated controvery section increases the weight the article gives it. It does not appear that the school has a reputation for having teachers who engage in inappropriate conduct with students, or that there is a pattern or practice of hiring such people. It does not appear that the teacher in question was rehired after his prison term. I'm not sure that one incident really says much about the school. If that is to remain, the focus of the section should be on the school's response. Did it jump to the teacher's defense? Try to shield him from legal repercussions? Did it side with the students and cooperate with law enforcement? Did it make changes in an effort to reduce the likelihood of similar occurrences in the future? Rewrite with those questions in mind and you'll have something relevant to the school's article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]