Talk:Sebastian River High School

Kaitlyn Hunt case

Right now, there's a section regarding the Kaitlyn Hunt case, in the news as of May 2013 (regarding an 18-year-old woman charged with having a sexual relationship with an underage fellow student). Should this really be on the high school's page? It seems to me that if the story is worth covering on Wikipedia, it should be on a page of its own; having it on the high-school's page gives undue weight to that incident in the article about the high school. In any event, it needs cleanup--the section refers to an examiner.com story without linking to it, and mentions certain details (like the older girl's expulsion from the basketball team) that aren't mentioned in the articles that were linked. Narsil (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's currently a trending issue, especially on Wikipedias news pages, but does not as of yet warrant an article of it's own. The issue is controversial and high profile, so it does warrant a mention. As such it is best suited to inclusion in this article until, or if, the subject becomes further notable. At which time it will, obviously, be split off into it's own separate article and this one will receive a footnote at best. Until that time it's best to include the controversial incident here. 203.59.92.107 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Even if it should be mentioned on some article, I don't see why it should be on this article. The connection to the school seems incidental--it would make as much or more sense to discuss the case on the page for the district attorney who's filing charges, or the county he works for. But regardless, if we do discuss it on this page (or any other), we need to be careful only to bring up facts that are supported by the references. Your recent edits made claims about the parties' ages that not only are not supported by the cited sourcesm but I fact are flatly contradicted by them. (E.g. The CBS News source says that according to the affidavit, the girls' ages when the sexual relationship began were 18 and 14. The affidavit may be mistaken, but we need some source that says so if we're going to include a contrary claim.) Narsil (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

[UPDATE] Since this page may be flying below the radar screen (especially for such a big news story), I've asked for third opinions on WP:THIRD. I'm happy to go with whatever they suggest. -- Narsil (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The arrest affidavit has been published by the Indian River County Sheriff's Office (IRCSO) and the relative ages, as well as the facts of the arrest, are incorrect in this article. According to the arrest affidavit, Miss Hunt was 18 years 6 months old at the time of her arrest in February. I'd prefer not to link to the arrest affidavit as it contains rather salacious details, but Miss Hunt's date of birth is listed as 8/14/1994. According to the IRCSO the victim had her 15th birthday after the arrest on 2/16/2013. My recommendation is that the incorrect information about their ages and the facts of the arrest be replaced with information which is consistent with the arrest affidavit. Out of respect for the victim, I'd also suggestion that a reference to a major media article which doesn't include a direct link to the affidavit be used as the source reference. The affidavit is fairly easy to find, but this is a sex crimes case and I ask other Wikipedians to exercise discretion. Tall Girl (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Tall Girl--thanks. We can definitely verify that the information in the news story we link to matches what's in the affidavit, without linking to the affidavit directly. (Apparently the story, as it's spreading in social media, is incompatible with the affidavit--I've seen lots of people claim that the relationship was between a 17-year-old and a 15-yo, and it appears the younger didn't turn 15 until the older was 18.)

Do you have any opinion about whether this story should be discussed on the high school's page at all? It seems to me that the story is only incidentally connected with the high school, and I'd be inclined to remove it, but I'm hoping for a third opinion on that. But in any event, we can remove elements (like the bit about her being removed from the basketball team) that aren't in the cited news stories.

Thanks again for your help! Narsil (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up--Tall Girl, I rewrote the item removing the details that weren't mentioned in the linked sources (e.g. that she was removed from the basketball team to prevent "drama"). One of the two linked sources refers to the affidavit, and mentions the girls' ages (which I saw were confirmed by the affidavit itself), so I think that's sufficient documentation for their ages at the time of the alleged actions. I also would rather we didn't link to the affidavit directly; instead, I put in a note just noting that the affidavit is publicly available, e.g. from the New York Times website. Does that make sense? As for whether to discuss this issue on the high school's page at all--now that the signal is boosted, I'm happy to let others make that decision. Most likely this case will get a WP page of its own, at which point the issue will be moot. Narsil (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:3O Actually, this is not a 3O discussion because more than 2 editors are involved. But here is my take – this is a WP:NOTNEWS issue. If a new article about the incident or people gets written, then perhaps, a notable alum section or see also section might mention the article. (But WP:ONEEVENT decides that question.) Teenagers engaging in sex, and getting caught? My, my. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Tall Girl came in reply for my request for a third opinion. You're the fourth, but the more, the merrier. ;-) I pretty much agree with you--I feel like if the Hunt case merits a page of its own it should go there, and if not, we shouldn't try to shoehorn it in on pages like this one. "Sutter Cane" disagreed, but if you feel as you do, I'm happy with deleting this whole section. Narsil (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting expelled for having a relationship with another student 4 years younger is a relevant school topic. It says something important about the school and its decision takers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.197.210.73 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not the consensus here. Whether the punishment is appropriate or not--boy howdy there are a lot of schools where students are having sex with each other. If any one incident isn't notable enough to have its own WP page, then it's not notable enough to talk about on the school's page, either. IMO. Narsil (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Part of what is at issue is whether or not this case is about the sexual orientation of the two students. In that case, the location of the event is somewhat relevant, in much the same way that the Stonewall Riots are considered significant to the gay rights movement, and the Montgomery bus boycotts were a part of the civil rights movement. We know where those two places are, and any discussion of the Stonewall Inn, or Montgomery Alabama should include those events. In my opinion (hey, this is the Talk page, so I get to have an opinion here), this case isn't about sexual orientation so much as the age differences, and that makes it far less relevant to any article about the school. Tall Girl (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)