Talk:Herriman High School

Newspaper controversy
First, we shouldn't have a section on any single historic event in an article on a 10 year old school. This should be A sentence in a history section. Much of it is off topic. The school shuttering the newspaper is on topic. The students starting an inde paper is not. This article is about the school, not the people associated with it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Reaching A Consensus
I have to disagree with the blanket statement that we shouldn't be covering any one single historic event in an article on a 10-year-old subject. While I do believe some sentences were off-topic, the section was encyclopedically relevant due to the national attention of the event and the fact that it was the direct result of the school's blocking of their student paper. In fact, I think leaving this portion out would not being following WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG which specifically tells us to ask "Has there been a noteworthy event there?" There has been and the school even issued a response to the attention said event garnered. I propose the following be added to the article in lieu of the total removal of the section:

Let me know what you think and I'd be happy to add the links and sources and make this edit. — F ORMAL D  UDE (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks like it should be covered... Articles about schools do in fact cover the people who go and work there, whats off topic would be information about those people that is not related to their time at the school. "X, Y, and Z formed the band Q in 1996 while attending Jefferson High” would be ok, “X of the band Q who formerly attended Jefferson High was arrested in Thailand in 2017 on sex trafficking charges” would not be ok. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither of your arguments are in any way compelling. John from Idegon (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you under the impression your argument is in any way compelling? I thought "First, we shouldn't have a section on any single historic event in an article on a 10 year old school.” was a joke the first time I read it. Three arguments have been made here, yours is by far the most inferior. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * An ambiguous objection like that does not focus on the content of the negotiation and is not helpful for resolving content disputes or reaching a consensus. Please provide an equivalent rebuttal to the confutations made of your reasoning for reverting this section. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No. WP:ONUS is on the party wanting the content in. Pro tip #34: make arguements to WP:PAG using reliable secondary sources. I'm not engaging in an emotion based argument. Provide some facts. John from Idegon (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And please explain where I said we shouldn't discuss it at all. I said it shouldn't be in its own section and the coverage ends where the school's involvement ends., my arguments do not have to be compelling. At all. In any way. Your ignorance of Wikipedia PAG does not make my actions improper. John from Idegon (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not an emotion-based argument, it is based on the fact that WP:WPSCHOOLS specifically lays out in WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG why an event like this should be, and regularly is, included. I'm not sure why you mentioned WP:ONUS since no one has made the argument that the verifiability of the content in question should guarantee its inclusion, and I have already explained my reasons for including the disputed information with a larger consensus of editor's than you. If you will not address them you are the one stalling the achievement of a consensus. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a totally silly edit war. The article is a stub, the references given don't stand up adding a bit a chit-chat before we have a sensibly sized and written article say of 25,000 bytes is ridiculous. John is right that this can be handled by one sentence in ==media==, as a matter of principle we don't discuss individual staff, the headteacher is a little bit different. We don't give lists of subjects or facilities without discussion. A schools article needs a history section: a school dating back to before 1700, viz there will be ===20th Century=== subheading, and a ===Recent History=== section: for a school that is ten years old, the history section is really exciting to write! Who commission it, who approved the design, who was the architect what was the budget- did it overrun. What schools did it replace. We need a statement of philosopy, and the principles by which the initial teachers were selected. In ten years you are barely at the Performing stage of Forming, storming, norming, performing cycle- with a new school you can expect a good ten years of gaffes! The building they have got looks fantastic from the maps on the school website. There is an ==Architecture== section waiting to be written. In searching for references there will be load of other detail in the building planning documents. Remember Wikipedia is read world wide, and a major article need to explain a lot of concepts that are North America specific or provide links- for instance in the UK, sports are an after school activity and it is what that happens in the classroom, and the destination of the school leavers that is important- in ten years there will be sites that give that info. There is a lot to do here and maybe in a few years time, if the story recurs it may be appropriate to add a one liner. ClemRutter (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The references of the [|the disputed edit] meet WP:SOURCES. I don't what the fuss about bytes is when Winter_Springs_High_School is listed as a good example by WP:WPSCHOOLS and has just 7,000. I'd love to see this article get to 25,000 bytes, but that's most certainly not going to happen all at once, and removing sections that improve the article hinders that further.


 * My proposed wording seen in green above in my previous message does not discuss individual staff nor a headteacher. It cites a spokesperson, which is how the person is listed in the source in the original edit too, which seems more than fair to provide given the notability of the event is what elicited their response. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings from a long way away. I have a lot of sympathy with your proposed wording, but the time isn't right. I do think that 25,000 is achieveable, even if at 7K your paragraph could be inserted but at the moment there is nothing in the prose to suggest there is a building- or teachers or anything. I don't like waving around WP:LINKs when an article is so new- but I think we are talking about WP:UNDUE. Your source is fine, though I would not say international- unless you have a further reference. There needs to be a wikilink to Jefferson Muzzle awards, and that article seems to rely on Jefferson related sources so is not Wp:RS: these things snowball. Back to the article- you can use the named Winter_Springs_High_School which is listed as a good example category C example, as a template, as you build up the missing sections. ClemRutter (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just FYI WP:RS like WaPo don’t cover stories that are just a bit of chit chat... Can you explain what you mean by "The article is a stub, the references given don't stand up adding a bit a chit-chat before we have a sensibly sized and written article say of 25,000 bytes is ridiculous.” because your poor use of english renders the statement highly ambiguous. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I wish you were here so I could buy you a beer and discuss all this. I am trilingual in bad French, bad German, und schlecter Englisch. You know what a stub is, you have even tried to get a biography to GA. You have even heard of WP:BLP, and I see that you have fun in jumping in on talk pages and stirring while doing valuable service categorising, and editing military aircraft. Can you extend your skills to destubbing a few school articles- there is a vast backlog. At the moment this article need to be destubbed before anything else is attemped. Il faut que essayer écrire quelque chose au niveau C. ClemRutter (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't clear it up much. Can you provide either guideline or policy that supports your assertion that we must wait until an article is destubbed to add in-depth coverage in WP:RS (or "anything else")? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:American school stubs- a link to the to do lists. ClemRutter (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is neither policy or guideline and does nothing to explain your heterogenous opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please remember to comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request
The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Disputed edits 5/22/2018
For my three revisions restoring content to this page, (this version).

Notable alumni should not have been deleted. It meets WP:ALUMNI.

Also, the suicides are tied to the school. Those sources literally say the suicides were by Herriman High students while they attended the school.

Also, school activities should not have been removed, see 'Extracurricular activities' under WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG.

The school's award should not have been removed either, see 'Awards and recognition' under WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG.

— Formal Dude (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * School article guidelines represent a consensus on what should be carried in a school article and at what depth it should be covered. The notable alumni fail WP:NLIST, the policy governing notable people lists. Before a person can be on a notables list in any kind of article, they have to be notable, or in other words, either have, or unambiguously qualify to have, a biography on Wikipedia. They don't. That content will remain disputed unless or until you can produce a biography on each individual that passes thru WP:AFC and WP:NPP. Disputed content stays out unless or until you can reach a consensus on its inclusion.


 * The stuff on suicide is off topic. Lacking a solid source tying the school to the suicides in a causal manner, which would almost have to be a thoroughly vetted academic study, it's simply a trivial coincidence. The copy you wrote even indicates elevated suicide rates is a statewide problem. That fact alone is enough to remove this school as a causal agent. Even if it didn't, the school is not the only commonality the suicides have. Discussion of this is no more appropriate with the sourcing provided than a discussion of flu would be simply because multiple students were affected by it.


 * And, adding hyperlinks anywhere in an article except the external link section is clearly forbidden. See WP:ELNO.


 * The extracurriculars section was totally unsourced. See WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Unless there is some club that had been subject of significant widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources, there is no reason to cover them.


 * I cannot emphasize the following enough. A Wikipedia article on a school is in no way for the school. The staff students or alumni have no greater right to edit it than anyone else. Content should and will be limited to information that can be sourced in a way to show that it is of interest to our target audience, which is the entire English speaking world. As a matter of fact, when an editor connected to the school edits in the way that has been commonplace in the last week, they will have less right to edit soon, as they will be declared a WP:COI editor and will have to follow the restrictions on same.


 * I'm not done cleaning up this article yet. There will be more cuts and some additions. Pinging as about the only unblocked editor that has been active here recently., you need to follow WP:BRD please, and WP:AGF that others editing here have the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind with their edits. Let's not have any more edit warring please. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone actually restored those stupid pranks? Hard to believe. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining the reasons behind your edits, in the future I will follow WP:BRD. I agree with your reasons, aside from the school activities, of which I have added a source WP:RSPRIMARY. School activities wasn't removed though, so I believe we have resolved all our issues. — Formal Dude (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)