Talk:Saint John's Catholic Prep (Maryland)

Background

Several IPs (quite likely the same user) are attempting to add material to this section about the principal's DUI arrest a following a school Prom, and his subsequent leave from the school. The initial version was unsourced, and incorrectly stated that he was dismissed [1], and hence was a BLP violation. Subsequent versions have been sourced and are more neutral, having been improved from "dismissed" to "placed on leave" [2] to the more accurate "granted leave" [3], [4] (i.e., at his own request rather then involuntarily), but I still object to the statement "The principal had been at the school's prom shortly before the incident." It's accurate, but it appears to be an attempt to imply that the principal had been drinking at the school event, when the source does not state that. It's possible, but the incident was an hour after the end of the prom, so it's also possible that the drinking was not at the school.

This material does not belong in the "Background section" and I question whether it belongs in the article at all. People who work at schools get in trouble for all sorts of things, but if it does not involve the school these things should not be part of the school article. Unless we have a reliable source showing that this principal got drunk,or was drinking at the school event, I don't think this belong in the school article. Meters (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Meters logic above, adding further that the only sourcing being the local paper doesn't bode well either. IMO, the only way anything on this goes in the article is if the principal is dismissed for drinking at a school event, AND that fact receives significant, long-term and widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources. And then, only one sentence, without his name, in the history section. WP:RECENT most definitely applies. John from Idegon (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I am inclined to think my original edits do not belong (ironically, the most recent edit [5] on this topic from 13 March was not mine; apparently someone else on the same IP agreed with my original edits).

The best argument for excluding my edits is the recent nature of events. However, I am of two minds about this, because this is the type of event that will be remembered at a small, private school. At the same time, every school of this sort has numerous "scandals," but most of them have no written source, even though everyone knows them to be true, often because they were there or heard them from an eyewitness. We can't really include the principal's DUI without including all of the other "baggage," but we also can't include the other baggage because there are very few written sources. It seems like it needs to be all or nothing, but not in between.

That said, I wanted to address a few issues:

∞Should you choose to include this at a later date, perhaps the safest, cleanest way would simply be to say "the principal left his position..." Dismissed, placed on leave, or granted leave are all accurate. The source states that the principal requested leave as was granted it, so those two terms are accurate. The source also states that the school president "plans to name a new principal." Note that it says a new principal, not an interim principal. That's a dismissal, not just a leave, though I will concede that this may be reading between the lines more than is allowable.

∞The source clearly states that the principal received the DUI after being at the prom. I'm not implying anything, though whether the source is remains an open question. Maybe drop the prom part and mention only the DUI.

∞Calling into question the veracity of the source seems a bit disingenuous when one considers that the entire first paragraph, as well as numerous notable alumni are completely unsourced.

∞Thank you for reading my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.204 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)