Talk:Lakewood High School (Lake Odessa, Michigan)

Weight and BLP issues

An editor just engaged in a massive deletion of RS-supported material here, which I have restored. Blatant censorship. IDONTLIKEIT editing. Not appropriate. Paragraph properly supported with many RSs. This is the majority of the RS coverage of the school in the past decade -- and seriously -- an editor thinks it is fine to simply delete it and the RS refs? Please do not do it again. See WP:NOTCENSORED. If so inclined, let's bring it up for discussion at the appropriate page relative to censorship. 2604:2000:E016:A700:C5A9:426C:F70E:D718 (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC) :I've replied at User talk:2604:2000:E016:A700:C5A9:426C:F70E:D718, as multiple articles you've edited are part of this. Let's work this out amicably please. John from Idegon (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC) struck 20:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

And I've replied to you. Both there, in my edit summary, and in response to your completely inappropriate warning. How in the world do you imagine that warning is remotely appropriate in these circumstances? What are you talking about? Are you serious? We've discussed this. And what you my last edit -- This is normal editing. You incorrectly for example asserted there were multiple school officials. I fixed that. You now have among other things restored that error. What is going on with your actions that you would change from working together in collaborative fashion to this heavy-handed (similar to your early whole-clothe deletion) bludgeon non-collaborative approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:84FA:4E21:6A72:F03B (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We resolved some of the issues, but this and one other article remain. The IP editor has shifted IP as of today (not unexpected); but prior to the shift had added content regarding Chad Curtis to at least 6 different articles. I find it hard to believe that we do not have some sort of a WP:COI issue here. My concern with his initial edit were primarily WP:WEIGHT. I asked him to create a condensed version concentrating on the school's role in it. They responded with this, still over twice the size of the rest of the entire article and including a BLP violating mention of a non notable school board member. I pruned it to this, summarizing all the details that apply to the school and eliminating all the details that apply to individuals. The IP essentially restored everything I removed adding back the majority of off topic material here]. Not mentioning that the acts were committed at the school was an omission on my part and that should be in. The rest is just unneeded details. How is it relevant to the school in any way how much time he got? How is it any more informative to a person outside the immediate geographic area to include all these details? It's irrelevant and just simply reinforces the notion that the IP is here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than improve the encyclopedia. I'll be leaving notification at WikiProject Michigan and WikiProject Schools. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• John--Let's take these one by one. First of all, from the very beginning, though I've ignored it, you've flouted aggressively the mandate that you should operate under to assume good faith. You've done this with baseless accusations. In the face of proper editing.

Second -- as to COI, your baseless assertion, I've avoided leveling accusations at you. Despite the fact that you, in stark contrast, have done wholly impermissible things. Like delete in its entirety a paragraph with more than sufficient RS support, on the basis (you later assert) that it should be pared down. You did this rather than pare it down. That could of course reasonably be seen as so heavy handed to raise severe appropriate questions (as distinct from your bad faith musings) as to whether you are driven to make such improper edits by some conflict between what appears and your personal leanings, as you have discussed them. I respect you for your personal leanings. But we can't let those override wikipedia principles, and use them to block out RS-supported appropriate material, as you did for example when you deleted that entire paragraph.

As to weight -- of course when the primary mention of the school is with regard to a series of incidents in the school, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to create "weight" by creating material that does not exist for "balance". Or to delete material relating to the school.

As to the school official's name -- why in the world do you think (though it was not included in the last edit by me) that the school official's name is a BLP violation? We of course reflect other high-level school official names. And this one is widely reported, with regard to this school-related incident.

As to my IP address, speak to my computer service provider. I don't change IPs myself. Its simply not my doing -- but perhaps you understand what a static vs. a non-static IP address is.

No -- I did not "basically restore everything." That's untrue. Read it. And read my edit summary, explaining my changes. You did things such as introduce an untruth to the effect that multiple school officials did what the lone board member did. How in the world did you think that helpful? And why would you then reintroduce the untruth? That's not just heavy-handed. That's poor judgement, and poor editing. And I had pointed out the problem to you in my edit summary before you reintroduced it!

It is relevant to the school how much time he was sentenced for because it was a sentence for crimes committed at the school. Simple.

You've still - though before this I flagged it to you twice -- not explained your insertion of an untruth in this article. Nor your deletion of most of my changes.

I'm disappointed that you went from discussion to heavy-handededness.2604:2000:E016:A700:84FA:4E21:6A72:F03B (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The topic of the article is the school, not detailed negative material about one former employee's sexual misconduct. The article is a stub that could be expanded with content about the school, its programs, athletics, graduates, accreditation, facilities, and other school information. WP:BLP applies, as does WP:UNDUE. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll add my own assertion that this is a clear BLP and UNDUE issue. The point of school articles is to give a thorough, but still general idea about the school, not details about every event that occurs there and certainly not details about every person associated with it. Details about the conduct of an employee are totally inappropriate for a school article (as well as the associated city/town). Also, just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it should be included in an article. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• JonRidinger - I gather that John from Idegon has a lot of respect for you, and your experience. But frankly "the school" which you emphasize the article is about consists for our purposes not only of the bricks and mortar building. But the acts of the staff of the school, and students of the school, and events and the like of the school. Which is the focus of the 50 articles that discuss this fellow teaching at the school and the students and the litigation against the school and the school board member in question. Surely - you can't seriously say we just cover the building. And what we do is reflect RS coverage. Look at the RS coverage mentioning the school. I did. I sought to build up the article further on other aspects of the school - but frankly there is not a lot of RS coverage of other aspects, and there is a lot of RS coverage of these teacher, administrator, students, school litigation - and the article reflects the weight of what the RSs cover (we don't seek to make the weight match what the world would look like if the RSs did not cover the school and its people and its litigation in this manner).

And, of course, nobody was suggesting covering "details about every event that occurs there and details about every person associated with it." I'm not even sure where that came from. The focus is of course on what the RSs cover. They don't cover every event, nor every person, and that is not at all what is issue here.

And then there is the point that John accepted this version. But then because he disliked changes to it - including fixing his error I referred to - he (in POINTy fashion) deleted it all. He didn't even revert to this version! That's not proper WP editing. I don't think that non-affiliated admins would view it as proper. It seems POINTy in the extreme to do that.

Plus - it strikes me as odd that you have not, despite your working relationship with John, commented on his for example inserting - twice, even after his error was pointed out - incorrect information, as I discussed above. I hope your working relationship is not impacting your impartiality, because we are all just trying to work together here. If this devolves into "I have more wp friends, and they will agree with me because we support each other, and not point out when I'm wrong ..." well, that would be bad for wikipedia, don't you think? 2604:2000:E016:A700:DD59:C78C:71CB:AF2 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

John and I are both members of the Schools Wikiproject. He posted a general request for input, which is normal procedure for any kind of article dispute to help form consensus by seeking input from editors who aren't directly involved in a certain article. Like I do for just about every request for comment from project members, I checked it out and commented. He and I have crossed paths on several school articles, but that's it. That said, I've edited hundreds of school articles and thousands of Wikipedia articles, so I'm more than familiar with what constitutes a school vs. a school building and what the appropriate scope of an article is. This instance warrants, at most, a sentence or two about the incident, mostly in very general terms. Readers who want to know more can easily access that at Chad Curtis#Criminal sexual conduct convictions. It could be mentioned in the history (again a sentence or two), but is probably more appropriate to be mentioned in a notable people section, again, in more general terms. Notable people are not restricted to alumni or to positive notability, so his connection should be noted, but like any notable person for a school or town, we don't add a large amount of details in the school or town article since it's not necessary. It would be the same if Curtis went to this school as a student; we wouldn't have a large and detailed paragraph about his MLB achievements and life accomplishments in this article. Instead, it would simply mention that he played professional baseball in Major League Baseball. In the bigger picture of the school's overall history and development, this isn't a major incident; it didn't result in massive changes at the school, it didn't result in new facilities, and it didn't result in any kind of major penalties or sanctions. Yes it received media attention, but hasn't had much of any media attention for the school itself since the immediate aftermath. The fact this article is so underdeveloped highlights the clear issue with WP:UNDUE, but even if it were more developed, it would still only warrant a brief mention since, again, this article is about the school itself, so as I said, it needs to be thorough, but still general in its description. That's why we don't include vice principals, coaches, teachers, etc. in articles or go into minute detail about specific building features, historical facts, or season-by-season logs of the various sports teams. We note the connection with notable people, but that's it. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lakewood High School (Lake Odessa, Michigan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030235102/http://www.lakewoodps.org/annual-reports.html to http://www.lakewoodps.org/annual-reports.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)