Talk:Olentangy Orange High School

Article content
For the editors who do not know, there are standards for what should and shouldn't be in high school articles. You will find them at WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG. This page does not belong to the school or its students; it belongs to Wikipedia. And on Wikipedia, content is decided by consensus. A consensus on what should and shouldn't be in high schools has already been reached. It is cited above. Please don't add news, stuff of interest primarily to the school, names, or anything else the guidelines don't say should be there. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sparatan 1, if you're interested in drilling into the marching band component (no pun intended), here are a couple of references – a dissertation that describes the different styles and an article that could support your contention that Olentangy's band has a college-level size – although I'd strongly recommend writing the core stuff first: the lead, history, curriculum, campus, a broader overview of athletics, a list of principals and their years of tenure, etc. All of this is per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG as Gtwfan52 mentioned above. I wouldn't mention the pumpkin festival, but would note the Peach Bowl appearance. You'd need to document the size of the band, and it would be good if any inspiration provided by the OSU band had been written about. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary reference source so its mother's milk is secondary sources; if a decent external source hasn't written about it, then I don't think it should get more than a passing reference, and even then only rarely. Ottoump (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Olentangy Orange High School (Lewis Center, Ohio). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101103150033/http://cdab.org/members.asp?SCHOOL_ID=1211 to http://www.cdab.org/members.asp?SCHOOL_ID=1211

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

January 16, 2020
Will the group of editors consistently reinstating the disputed content please come here and discuss it as policy states you should? All that is going to happen on the course you are on is editing restrictions of some sort. John from Idegon (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

We are genuinely confused as to why the information was deleted. As I have stated, the information that I added was genuine content provided without commentary or promotion. I understand it could be reasonably viewed as such, but unlike you gentlemen, and while I am not a student of school this article is for, I live in and know the community. Within Central Ohio, Olentangy Orange is indeed well known for its band and journalism programs. I, and my friends, would not have added this information without necessary citations, and with them my point is proven. Their programs have accomplished things on the regional and national level and have been recognized by The Columbus Dispatch and other media outlets, thus they are applicable as encyclopedic content. In addition, as I said last night, the mission of Wikipedia is to provide specific, accurate details about specific topics for a global audience. This is not completed by gutting minor articles on albeit easily manipulatable topics like what happened to this page last night. Again, the content we were fighting over were properly cited and unbiased facts relevant to the status of the school and the events that have concerned it. Especially in regards to the Trump rally, it is illogical that while there can be a page on this website that mentions (and links to) this school as a location Trump has visited, it is unacceptable to have the page itself mention the event in return. I finally would like to, respectfully, point out hypocrisy with regards to the maintenance of this article. When I originally found this article and wished to add the modern, relevant information at hand as an active person who lives within the community (in March 2019), it was the same user (John from Idegon) who blocked my attempts, and while that may or may not be understandable, he left the rest of the article alone in his retractions of my additions. Last night, this dispute primarily arose because his return and retraction of the information this time included content that predated my editing and life on Wikipedia, which is totally disrespectful for the original authors that have no stake in this quarrel, and weakens his position as a competent editor for this article as he, unilaterally, reversed his personal decision on what fits his definition of encyclopedic. In summary, this article was unjustly made a shell of itself last night due to predispositions and prejudices against its content and the editors that put it there, despite a lack of experience surrounding the topic and its context from those who made it so, and the fact the information in question was properly cited to factual sources. We petition the information be reinstated as it is unbiased, truthful, and cited content, especially the information that predated any of our personal edits. Sparatan 1 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In support of the argument for incompetence as an editor for this particular article, upon researching John from Idegon and his personal talk page, it seems he was cited for recently violating the "assume good faith" rule towards the editors of another high school, namely Herriman High School of Herriman, Utah. With hypocritical editing habits in regards to this article, a previous citation towards the editors of another high school's article, and this comment during last night's edit war towards me: "[Consensus] is based on reliable sources Wikipedia policies and guidelines but not on what a bunch of children working together want to see in what they foolishly perceive as 'their school's page on Wikipedia'", I accuse John from Idegon of violating the "assume good faith" rule again and acting in bad faith towards me and the other editors of this article and letting such prejudices guide his editing habits here; I again argue for the reinstatement of our factual, cited, and known material therefore. Sparatan 1 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice from an outsider
I moved this section to the talk page for Sparatan 1. Because of the red wikilink, I assumed both the user and talk page didn't exist. My mistake. Ottoump (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

January 17, 2020
I am genuinely confused as to why previously-existing information was deleted. As I have stated, the information that I added was genuine content provided without commentary or promotion. I understand it could be reasonably viewed as such, but unlike the gentlemen that removed the content, and while I am not a student of school this article is for, I live in and know the community. Within Central Ohio, Olentangy Orange is indeed well known for its band and journalism programs. I, and my friends, would not have added this information without necessary citations, and with them my point is proven. Their programs have accomplished things on the regional and national level and have been recognized by The Columbus Dispatch and other media outlets, thus they are applicable as encyclopedic content. In addition, as I said last night, the mission of Wikipedia is to provide specific, accurate details about specific topics for a global audience. This is not completed by gutting minor articles on albeit easily manipulatable topics like what happened to this page last night. Again, the content we were fighting over were properly cited and unbiased facts relevant to the status of the school and the events that have concerned it. Especially in regards to the Trump rally, it is illogical that while there can be a page on this website that mentions (and links to) this school as a location Trump has visited, it is unacceptable to have the page itself mention the event in return. I petition for the information removed last night to be restored, as they are known and cited truths presented without biased promotion of the subjects at hand. Sparatan 1 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, my personal opinion is that the band would be a worthwhile addition while the president's visit probably wouldn't be. In either case, they'd need to be tightened up and adopt a more encyclopedic tone.
 * However, I think a different issue is that there's a lot of core information about the school – its campus, location, student body, history, curriculum, and a good leading paragraph – that should be written before filling out the Athletics and Additional Information sections. Ottoump (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, Ottoump, and in my original argument I noted that core paragraph and information had been deleted. That should be restored first before anything else. I think the Trump rally is honestly however more notable than even the band or any other program, because it was a major external event that involved the school and was relevant to an election (2018 special election for Ohio's 12th district). Sparatan 1 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, if a Trump visit is the most notable and important thing that ever happened, that's pretty sad. It's just an event, and it likely had nothing to do with the school at all and everything with the gymnasium and bathrooms and parking space. Plus, please don't go around citing the Epoch Times and dropping names of famous attendees. Second, you're singing the praises of the marching bands in blatantly promotional terminology (including comparisons with OSU bands, verified by what source?), with a bunch of YouTube and organizational (that is, promotional, unreliable, primary) links. And you throw in the marching band website, in violation of WP:EL. Then, there is this edit warring: you are lucky not to get blocked, since you broke WP:3R twice. In addition your edit summaries are both specious and verbose ("the caretaker editors have been careful to provide measured yet detailed content for this article without the influence of promotion and bias"--what does that even mean? And who are the "caretaker editors"?). "Objective lack of consensus" is specious since, first of all, you don't seem like an objective, disinterested editor, and consensus is something that will be established on the talk page. Here. The moment two editors (who, no disrespect intended, out-experience you in Wikipedia edits by a factor of, I don't know, a hundred thousand) revert you, it is time for you to stop edit warring, especially after you were warned. If anyone had reported you (which is kind of a drag to do), you would have been blocked. Finally, there were plenty of specific objections to your claims, as anyone can see who looks through the history. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing, Sparatan 1: don't edit while logged out, especially not if you're edit warring. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The point is the event happened. I, and nobody else on this website, care for your subjective opinion on the matter. Thousands of dollars were spent on it, thousands came, and it directly impacted an election. It is noteworthy. And I cited The Epoch Times for proof of attendance, as they provided objective material: photos. It was a photo gallery article. I understand, again, the wording can be seen as promotional, but the sources were factual, even if lowly (though I wouldn't consider local and community news outlets lowly). And I cited the band website at one point to cite the number of members, around 250, which is an unusually high number for most marching bands and signals its popularity and notoriety by itself. I apologize for edit warring, but as the discussion above was closed because I used rhetoric against the actions of another editor, let's keep this based on content. Sparatan 1 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When you make an actual argument that is based in sources and policy, and provide some idea of what you are arguing for, I'll be happy to respond. The prior content is unlikely to gain consensus. So what are you proposing? Specifically, please. John from Idegon (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)