Talk:Steubenville High School/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

Big Red's mascots name isnt Big Red... it is Man O' War... and the high school got its nickname 'Big Red' from new uniforms they ordered that were red. The former uniforms were purple and the head coach at the time ordered new ones and the newspaper called the time Big Red because of the big players in the red uniforms... you can learn more at www.rollredroll.com

Rape charges

All efforts to mention the rape charges made against football players at SHS have been reverted or removed in including at least one that was not vandalism. I have placed two sentences that are as neutral as feasible considering that this is a current event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6B:F0E:B00:219:E3FF:FE07:AF53 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the two juvenile names identified in the article per WP:BLPCRIME, which states; A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing a crime unless a conviction is secured. (empasis added) These two juveniles are being tried in juvenile court, and I think under the circumstances, caution should override at this stage in the proceedings from naming the two juveniles. The paragraph in the first sentence, already states that two students were indicted, and that NPOV statement is enough, until the case is adjudicated. If there is overwhelming consenus to include the juveniles names, then I would defer to consensus.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Naming them would serve no encyclopedic purpose. Marteau (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless someone wants to get on expanding the article in general with demographics, history, extra-curricular activities, etc., IMHO the size of the rape crew story is WP:UNDUE. An event that took place in the course of one semester, while very horrible and needing mention in the article, should not be over 50% of an article about a school that has been around for at least 63 years. The usual problem with school articles is self promotion. In this case, can't anyone find anything good to write about in any of those 63 years?Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
As I understand WP:UNDUE it is used to compare the relative "weight" of points of view as compared to other points of view. In other words, it is not the size of a part of the article, per se, but the size of a point of view as compared to other points of view. But there ARE no other points of view to compare it to in the article at this point... there's just lists of personnel, numbers and such... so I don't think WP:UNDUE really applies. Marteau (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes...by the size of the portion of the article on the rape crew, relative to the size of the article, it gives undue emphasis to the importance of criminal activity at this school. If someone who was totally ignorant of anything that ever happened at Steubenville were to read this article, din't you think they'd think it a pretty terrible place? Whereas in fact, we only have referenced information that terrible things occurred here this semester. The size in proportion to the size of the article also is WP:CURRENT problem, as over 50% of the article is about something that happened this semester. I am not saying that the event shouldn't be mentioned, I am saying that the rest of the article nneds to be grown as so to diminish the appearance that rape is all that ever happened here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately for this small school, the national media has focused their attention on this alleged criminal act and this will probably be their undeserved 15 minutes of infamy. I have read a couple of articles about this and the only information being reported is in relation to this case, besides a few details about the town itself, which has its own WP page, Steubenville, Ohio, where this case is mentioned as well. The city has started a website [1] to " provide information on the government of the city, as well as the transparency and the timeline of the evidence". [2] But there again, it is in relation to this case. If this case retains it's "legs" in RS, then a decision should probably be made on whether to include forthcoming details here on this page or the citys WP page, and provide a link to one or the other for readers who are interested in learning about this incident. I tend to agree with Gtwfan2 about "it gives undue emphasis to the importance of criminal activity at this school". The city's page here on WP is much larger and could probably support the amount of information more comfortably without any undue weight there. There is already a section [3] at that page about this incident. Any thoughts on this?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The "inherent" notability of the school is pretty minor and deserving of no more than a stub. This even is unfortunately what is going to give the school explicit notability, so it is not undue. However, It seems like a very good case for a spinoff article as the case itself seems to be notable at this point, which would allow the entry here to remain highly summarized. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several things, all rather mundane, but perfectly appropriate that can be added to this article. An athletics section, discussing the conference, all the sports offered and any state championships;an activities section discussing things like clubs, arts, and forensics, listing what is offered and discussing any notable accomplishments. A History of the school, a demgraphic breakdown. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Some of that certainly, but finding sources for all that that are not WP:SPS or WP:ROUTINE might be tough. WP:V and WP:R and not optional. Clubs and things are unlikely to be of encyclopedic value unless they have achieved some notability/significant success. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have roughly 500 school articles that I watch. self source for simple listings of sports and activities is perfectly fine. I mean, it isn't exactly controversial stuff. Usually, a community will have at least one referenced history book written about it, even if the only place you will find it is the local library. And, admittedly, I don't know how to find them, but the dept of Education compiles demo stats on all schools. I will expand the stuff I can from the school's website and look further into demographics. Someone local will need to work on history, as I have very little access to obscure ref sources.Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


More importantly, someone is trying to spin this off into a separate article, which it certainly doesn't deserve. Crimes are only supposed to be covered if there is general widespread coverage, and or if there is some long lasting effect from the crime (such as legal changes--a good example would be Sandy Hook). Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Split rape case proposal

It's quite clear that media attention on this has exploded and there will be extensive coverage for quite some time. While no one has yet bothered to expand the section in the article, it is easy to see that it could be expanded three-fold and still not cover all of the relevant information. Of course, we don't want that to be in this article, as it is WP:UNDUE for the high school and it is constraining to the growth of the information on the case itself. So, I propose that the rape case section is spun off into its own article. Just make sure we keep note tags on the talk page and hidden notes in the text of the article saying that the names are not to be put into the article until an actual guilty conviction occurs, per WP:BLPCRIME. SilverserenC 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that this is a really nice, extensive and detailed article on the case and it is being extremely underused currently. SilverserenC 01:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. This is a rather sad story about a collection of amoral half wits and although the encyclopedia could go into ever deeper detail, what would that accomplish beyond indulging in the morbid curiosity of some? Just keep it to the basics on this page... the "highlights" and not turn the place into a tabloid is my thought. Marteau (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between stories that a tabloid covers and stories that attract global attention. Wikipedia is meant to reflect what is focused on, what is in the reliable sources, and not pick and choose what we individually feel is important. That's the whole point about being NPOV. SilverserenC 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
All I'm saying is, digging too deep into this and it becomes an exercise in trivia. And we do in fact "pick and choose"... that's what "editing" IS... Wikipedia is (or perhaps should be) more than just an indiscriminate data dump but should be a resource for those who want to understand a thing, not just wallow in excessive detail. Marteau (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course we pick and choose to some extent. It's impossible to be perfectly NPOV because that would require a complete no opinion on the subject itself and you wouldn't be working on a subject if you didn't have some sort of opinion on it, no matter how strong or weak.
The point I was trying to make is that we do our best to pick and choose in a manner that equally represents all viewpoints and information with the weight they deserve from the attention they receive. That's exactly why we're meant to be a reflection of the information that the world covers. And i'm not saying that we should indiscriminately make information on the case ridiculously detailed. All i'm saying is that the world-wide attention that the case has received and is currently receiving shows that it is important to the world, so it is important that we cover it to the appropriate depth to reflect that. And that would, at minimum, require making it a separate article. SilverserenC 03:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree Spin off to own article. The school did not rape anyone, two individuals allegedly did. The bulk of this article is about a pending legal case widely published in the media. WP:UNDUE applies in this case as "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." and appears to be the case here: Undue weight has been placed on the school topic article for the alleged actions of two individuals, apparently an isolated event. If at some point in the future the accused are convicted, it may be appropriate to place their names under "notable alumni" with a link to the appropriate article. Patriot1010 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Spin off per WP:UNDUE. The news stories aren't even about the school anymore, they're more focused on the alleged rapists and alleged victim. Give the case its own article. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Spin off You've convinced me. Keep pertinent major details here, and go into great depth in a separate article. Marteau (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Spin off - the case is likely far more notable than the high school, and for different reasons. The article on the high school would be greatly disproportionate and unbalanced if all the rape case coverage were adequately covered. --Lquilter (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Own article. From an international standpoint, the school does not matter at all. The age of the victim and the perpretators already implies that they are students, but it has no role in the events. The only piggy-backing I could see would be an article about the Big Red, because that connection is part of the news. (Yes, I am aware that the Big Red is the school team. My point still stands.) --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely enough coverage to merit a spin-off article, was coming here to do it myself before noticing this discussion. See also Timeline of events associated with Anonymous#Steubenville rape case. GiantSnowman 13:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support spin off - I came to check something, expecting to find a page of its own, so I will definitely add my support for it. Press from Australia to Northern Europe are commenting on this case. --Ronja (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Spin off - Although I can sympathize with Marteau's fears of Wikipedia degenerating into a sensationalist tabloid, this probably does belong in its own article. We can always edit the spin off article to remove sensationalist or prurient details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Spin off - This case is high profile enough in the US that it should have its own article -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - too big of a news story to be contained in the school page. Needs a split. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 08:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Names of convicted juveniles

Wikipedia is not here for naming and shaming juveniles. Some people obviously don't agree, so I will wait and see if some consensus can be reached. Comments appreciated. Lestermandersson (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick search and was unable to find policy or precedent for naming guilty juveniles. Could someone help me out and link? Thanks Marteau (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel that while it could be argued that the press do (mostly American press, while most of the rest of the western world does not) publish names of convicted juveniles, it's not in Wikipedia's interest to do so. They've been convicted and their punishment has been decided by court, not by the victim, the media and especially not by Wikipedia. I found neither policy nor precedent but don't think they're needed. Lestermandersson (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll go with the concensus I hope someone can come up with policy or prior occurrences in Wikipedia where this issue was hashed out. If "protecting" juvenile rapists' names from publicity is a policy most editors want, OK, fine, but I'm not invested in protecting rapists of any age from being exposed here or elsewhere and I actually care very little if they are named here or not. Marteau (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED --193.254.155.48 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections

From the 'Athletics' section down shows information that's better left on the Steubenville High School page and not here considering it bears little to no relevance to the case itself. Will this be fixed soon? Or rather, should the school and the case be two separate articles?

This is the Steubenville High School page, but the rape case has been voted (strong consensus) to split from this page soon. Lestermandersson (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Where to collect international news articles about the rape case for possible own page?

In case the proposal of splitting the rape case into its own article gets accepted, it could be good to have a list of links to reactions in international news media ready. I've never done anything like that before, and I've been looking up and down the FAQs but found nothing about where to store links to or copies of sources for later use. I could off course stick what I find on a subpage of my userpage, but if many do that, we'll likely repeat each others' work several times over, and that would be inefficient and wasteful. --Ronja (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like, based on the consensus above, someone already went and created Steubenville High School rape case. I would say go and put a list of aid sources on the talk page there so they can be gone through and added as appropriate. And then put a strike through each ref on the talk page list as it's put into use in the article. SilverserenC 20:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steubenville High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steubenville_High_School/Archive_1&oldid=1137205484"