Talk:Warwick High School (Pennsylvania)

Content dispute
Removing information that is reliably sourced, whether controversial or not, in favor of a redlink for a person that does not meet WP:N is a clear violation of the policies on verifiability, notability, and countless others. Please note that these edits could be construed as vandalism if they continue. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost the entire article about a local High School founded in 1922 is devoted to one day barely newsworthy incident. You don't consider this article lopsided?Tstrobaugh (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need a policy citation for such an obvious "undue weight" Here it is.Tstrobaugh (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lopsided is not the issue. If you think it warrants expansion, do it. Go find some secondary sources and add information. If you think it being lopsided is in violation of some policy, then show me where. It's not giving undue weight to the issue because everything that's shown is reported in reliable sources. If there are more issues to be covered, then write about them instead of deleting sourced content. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From your source: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Undue weight applies to opinions and viewpoints. This is neither. It is verifiable fact that fully meets the requirements for WP:RS and WP:V. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  20:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a local High School. Do you think the majority of people think that most of this High School's article should be devoted to this one incident? Did you read undue weight? "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Do you think the majority of people think of this High School's article as being about this one incident? Tstrobaugh (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read the policy, and please don't accuse. How do you consider this to be a view held by a minority? This is not a "view". It is a fact. There is a difference. This is not what about what people think. This is an encyclopedia. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed my concerns. I do not want to know if you share them just if you see them. Notability "Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Do you feel that the incident you want included is covered in the article as it was written with "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"?Tstrobaugh (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that information was presented in a factually accurate fashion and that other sources are needed for more pertinent academic information. Just because the incident was well-covered and the school is not is no reason to gloss over the facts. I also feel that you have violated the same policy that you quote by introducing a redlink for a non-notable person. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it from: "Just because the incident was well-covered and the school is not is no reason to gloss over the facts." That in answer to my question, you can if fact, not see my point. Is that true?Tstrobaugh (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I understand that you feel this information either does not warrant inclusion or, perhaps, warrants inclusion in a lesser manner. I strongly disagree with the former, but could get on board with the latter. However, I must point out that the new information currently in the article, IMHO, does not merit inclusion either. If your belief is otherwise, please explain. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly willing to drop the James Hoffer even though he has a page at IMDB. If this incident is so important it should have it's own article. If it's part of the schools history and tradition than it should be sized as such. Think of this article as an encyclopaedia article. Would this school's entry devote so much space to this one incident. It just seems like a schoolyard fight to me. Here are some citations if you need them

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=warwick-high-school+pennsylvania+2007&hl=en&um=1&sa=N&cid=8621214838817640 Did you write the original piece? Do you want me to rewrite it?Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the original section because it was unsourced and poorly written. I can certainly trim it down without an issue. From an alumnus of the school (myself), this is actually much more than a schoolyard fight because of how long it went on. This had been a long-standing issue at our school for a long, long time and never came into the spotlight until this issue became news. Regarding the Hoffer issue, IMDb isn't a reliable source and doesn't establish notability. Let me do a trim off of an old diff and see if we can come to an agreement. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The school received press coverage on October 11, 2007, after three white students allegedly yelled racial slurs at minority students outside of the school building. As a result, the students were suspended, and Confederate flags were banned on school property. In response, the community of Lititz commemorated the 2009 Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday with "a clear statement against racism."
 * Would this suffice? KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WarwickHSarial.JPG