Talk:Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School

[Untitled]
John, you deleted content from this page for WP:BLPCRIME. The guidance below says that this reason does not apply if "a conviction has been secured". The content that you deleted was about a person who pleaded no contest (guilty) to 5 felony charges of child sexual abuse and is currently in San Quinton Prison for those crimes. Please explain how the BLPCRIME reason applies.

''This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.''

You also also relied on WEIGHT to eliminate content, which applies to disputes. None of the information you deleted was in dispute. It is facts and was well supported with highly reputable sources, like the San Jose Mercury, San Francisco Chronicle, and multiple local television channels and explained both viewpoints. Please explain how this is placing undue weight on a conflict.

''Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. '' You had initially removed all the sexual abuse content from this article under the rationale of BLP. I see you have now removed that and have no reason, but said to talk. I have added all the content you requested, and you deleted it. Please let me know what you need for this article with the highly relevant and notable child sexual abuse content to be included. Please provide guidance so that we may have this important content, and all the other great historical information that you requested, included.

You said that the policies are vague and said to talk. Please provide your rationale for removing this content so we can talk about it. Markm999 (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)