Talk:Yorkville High School

Probably true with ALL school pages, but a lot of students at this school are vandalizing this page. The school IP had to be banned as I understand it. I want there to be a 'vandalism' template at the top. STV0726 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yorkvillehslogo.gif

Image:Yorkvillehslogo.gif 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 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) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the Hastert conviction

The conviction of Dennis Hastert on charges related to child molestation poses some challenges to this article, e.g. I removed a joke that is out of place here - maybe not elsewhere, but out of place in an encyclopedia.

The challenges, as I see them are:

• to represent what happened fairly and clearly, without smirking or smearing anybody by association
• not to victimize anybody who didn't do anything wrong - that probably includes the whole high school.

I don't know the answer of how to do this correctly, but am pinging a Wiki admin to help out. Students and high school admins, might want to comment, but I suggest both keeping anonymous and revealing that there is a connection to the High School (as vaguely as possible). @BethNaught:

Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, did Yorkville's wrestling program really only begin in 1973? (Yes, I have a very, very distant connection to the school) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As the case against him is only related to his actions regarding hushing this up, I don't see a good way to cover this at all in this article. I would have no objections to adding what he was actually convicted for to his blurb in the notable section, but I don't really see a good way to cover this here until someone writes a book about it or something. John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it has to be covered one way or another. I'll remove anything I think is over the line, but if we don't have it in here somebody else will. The arguments for inclusion - which I agree with - will be that the molestation was admitted and is in the court records, it happened to members of the school wrestling team, presumably at the old high school. The offender was afterwards the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The judge said he was a "serial child molester" and all the national, local, and probably international newspapers - of the highest quality - reported it. Impossible, really, not to have it. I'll try to stay out of it, but ignoring it isn't the answer. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones, your opening sentence is a BLP violation. He was most emphatically not convicted of anything related to child molestation. Even if he would have been charged with the crime he is accused of committing covering up, THAT would not be child molestation. It would be sexual abuse. Child molestation is when the victim cannot consent, even with someone their own age. In most US States, under 12. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. What the judge said is just his opinion, no matter who covered it. It had nothing to do with the case at hand. Has the school made a statement? Ever? Since there will never be a trial, the supposed facts will never be substanciated. If the school doesn't talk about it, how do you propose we ever write about it neutrally? And on the subject of neutrallity, with your plea for anonymity and asking students for their "feelings", I have my doubts that you are the right editor for the job. John from Idegon (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

re:"What the judge said is just his opinion, no matter who covered it. It had nothing to do with the case at hand." I disagree. He said the offender was a "serial child molester" at the sentencing hearing - i.e. as an official act. And Hastert admitted the molestation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source for your last statement or remove it. He "accepted" the statements of the two anonymous victims, neither of whom were children when the unajudicated event occured. Again, facts. The fact that the judge said something is still quite irrelevant, except perhaps if the case were to be appealed, where it might be considered a reversible error. It does not make him legally guilty of even the crime of sex abuse, much less the far more severe crime of child molestation. Just because the media insists on sensationalism doesn't mean we have to. Stop using the term child molester. We will never know the truth, but even the truth of the accusations do not include child molestation, despite the statements of a grandstanding judge. John from Idegon (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)