Talk:Presentation High School

Fair use rationale for Image:PresentationHSSeal.png

File:PresentationHSSeal.png 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 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PresentationHSSeal.png

File:PresentationHSSeal.png 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) 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegations

The section on the sexual abuse allegations is written from a neutral point of view free of opinions or advocacy and provides citacions from news articles published in the Mercury News which is a reliable source. The section has been removed in whole twice with edit comments:

removed slanderous lies about the school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=853202137

Fixed false representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=853186766

I invite fellow editors to revise the section or argue why it should not be included, rather than delete the text wholesale without argumentation. 24.155.229.89 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

First, wholesale removal of a disputed new addition is exactly what is supposed to be done, rather than what you propose. See WP:BRD.

Second, verifiability and neutrality are not the only criteria for inclusion. This is a developing story. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. All that exists at this point are allegations. Allegations are not facts.

Third, there are no allegations of any wrongdoing on the part of the school. This article is about the school, not people who work there or attended there.

Fourth, outside of the initial (unsubstantiated) story in the Washington Post, you've shown no indication this story is of interest to anyone outside the local community. We do not write articles here to serve the locality of the subject.

In summary, at this point there is nothing encyclopedic in this addition. All we have are unsubstantiated allegations about an employee of the school. If lawsuits are filed and go to trial (the likelihood of which is slim, as they would probably be settled with gag orders in place), then maybe if the school is found culpable, maybe then there might be something to add. Obviously, that's not going to be any time soon. John from Idegon (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

First: my interpretation of BRD is that the first step should be a bold edit to the new addition, which is exactly what I was calling for. Using BRD to justify reverting an edit seems to contradict "BRD does not encourage reverting" in the BRD page.

Second: this is not a developing story. There are no ongoing lawsuits, due to the statute of limitations having expired. Allegations have been made, Presentation has issued a response, and that is where the situation lies today.

Third: as written in the reverted section, the allegations are against the school and its procedures for handling reports of sexual abuse. Specifically, the victims allege that they reported sexual abuse to the school, and the school did not follow mandated reporting laws.

Fourth: Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Aside from that, I can't find anything in the Wikipedia content guidelines stating that content in an article must be of interest to people outside of the local community. Further, the topic even has its own category page. If it's not a valid subject for inclusion here, it's not valid in most of the articles in that category.

In summary, this same topic has been fit for inclusion in several other encyclopedia entries, even with unsubstantiated allegations made in the last year. These allegations are directly against the school and its sexual abuse reporting procedures. The allegations have been substantiated by local police departments, who do not have records of mandated reporting done by Presentation High School. Lawsuits will not be filed, because the statute of limitations on mandated reporting laws has expired, so this is not an ongoing event. 24.155.229.89 (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And all they are are allegations. Allegations are not facts. Police reports are not facts. You should see some of the reports I've seen. Police reports do not become fact until their content has been ajudicated. This is not a newspaper. We write about the factual things that are written about the school. This is a sad affair, without a doubt. It's possible there's a factual basis to it, but the bottom line is we will never know. And unless the time comes that we do (example: the teacher makes a deathbed confession to it all), then there are no facts we can add to the article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The existence of allegations that the school did not report sexual abuse to the police is a fact. The lack of police reports, which should exist if the school were following mandated reporting laws, is a fact. The school's response to all of the above is a fact. These are all factual things written about the school in the country's fifth largest daily newspaper. There are similar factual things written about other schools elsewhere on Wikipedia, as I pointed out. I feel like you are setting a strangely unreasonable standard of evidence for this particular topic on this particular page (deathbed confessions? Seriously?). 24.155.229.89 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not base content on unsubstantiated allegations. Wikipedia content is based on consensus, not precident. Sorry but your arguments are not persuasive. John from Idegon (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You should read the "Precedent in usage" section of your link. Particularly:

"This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else."

"Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred."

There is no content in the edit based on unsubstantiated allegations. The content is based on the existence of allegations, which is factual. It is also based on news reporting about the allegations, which is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I do not think you have provided an argument against these points yet. Again, like at the beginning of this section, I invite you to resolve this dispute over content through changes rather than taking the same all-or-nothing position as two separate vandals. 24.155.229.89 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying sex abuse in schools should not be covered. You have not provided one single fact showing that has happened. Not one. Until you can come up with more compelling arguments, I'm done. You do not have consensus for this content, and as you keep pointing out, I do have consensus to remove it. Ping me if you can come up with anything better. Oh, and referring to constructive edits, such as the IP's removal of this unsubstantiated garbage, as vandalism is considered a personal attack. FYI. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You lead this discussion by accusing me of vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=853431416 for my good faith edits of the athletics section. I regret that we've reached this impasse. 24.155.229.89 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, seeing as we have been unable to reach consensus on the Talk page for these two sections, I will be requesting dispute resolution. 24.155.229.89 (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Extracurricular activities

The Extracurricular Activities section was removed due to lacking sources. I attempted to restore it with sources, and it was removed again. I added sources at what I thought was the same level as the Athletics section.

What is the difference between the two sections? It seems to me that they should either both be removed, or both kept. 24.155.229.89 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The information in the athletics section is easily sourcable to secondary sources. High school athletics are a subject of great interest in the United States and are covered in detail daily by newspapers. Conversely, French club, A/V club or the Class of 2019 club will without a doubt never receive any coverage in newspapers, not even local ones. This article is not for the school; in actuality, encyclopedia articles are not written about the subject of the article. They are written about what is written about the subject of the article. There are a few exceptions. Simple listing of information that is of widespread interest, that is not controversial in any way,and is not promotional in any way and is within school article guidelines , that cannot be sourced to a better source, can be sourced to the school. Examples would include a section on co-cirricular arts programs such as instrumental or vocal music, dance or theatre. In an Academics section, a listing of AP courses would be appropriate referenced to the school. The existence of academic teams that compete interscholastically can be sourced to the school, however, anything beyond existence requires an independent secondary source, both for verification and to show that there is actually an interest in the program outside the school. Anything outside the general exceptions listed here requires that sources outside the school have written about it. John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait, but you removed the section that includes dance and theater. Which you explicitly listed as examples of topics that can be added and sourced to the school.

Anyway, if all it needs are secondary sources from news articles, that's easy enough for dance and robotics. I'll add those sources in. 24.155.229.89 (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Do you even know what extracurricular means? I was talking about co-cirricular activities. Please actually read what I said. The dance link is dead and there is nothing in the robotics link that can be used. Do you understand that the way you create content is to read stuff and when you find something that belongs in the article, you paraphrase it and add it to the article with a source, right? You do not take what you know and try to find a source to verify it. You will constantly be reverted doing that. John from Idegon (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that you were making a distinction between "co-curricular" activities and extracurricular activities. I assumed you were using the terms interchangeably, since the school article guidelines you linked to doesn't use that word, and makes an explicit allowance for an "Extracurricular Activities" section on school pages:

"Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of the school, like students' union/student council activities, a student newspaper, clubs, regular activities, etc."

Again though, I encourage you to drive consensus through minor edits, not an all-or-nothing position.

(also, I fixed the reference for dance) 24.155.229.89 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)