Talk:Episcopal School of Dallas

Untitled

For a May 2005 deletion debate see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Episcopal School of Dallas

Controversy

Hello, I see someone has taken the effort to remove information. I'm here to argue that 1) These incidents are actually incredibly well sourced 2) They have a high degree of notability for that reason If anything, there should be some mention of the ESD controversy. I'm sorry, it's an ugly story, but Wikipedia is not always so pleasant. Thank you, Trees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeees (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't care about pleasant or ugly, but there's been persistent addition of unsourced content regarding student demographics, with what appear to be original research assessments. WP:NPOV is required. 76.248.149.47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The information I removed had 0 references, so in fact were not sourced at all. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've requested page protection because this is getting out of control. WP:BRD is simply being, BR with no D, so to mandate discussion and stop edit warring, I'm afraid the page is going to have to be fully protected--Go Phightins! (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The part he just added about the sexual misconduct controversy was quite well referenced. The demographics part, no.Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"The school tried to cover it up", that's your interpretation of neutral? Really? Go Phightins! (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Dallas paper and the NBC Tv station did not say exactly that, no. But that is no longer in the article either. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you guys are trying to put the poor edits on Trees, where I don't see a thing wrong with his edits. When it was pointed out to him that the demographics were a problem, he reverted. The garbage came from an IP earlier. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Trees is acting in good faith, but I also would assert that some of his edits violate WP:OR. Go Phightins! (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't replace content someone else reverts without a discussion, Trees. The lawyers name is completely incidental to the article. Also the last reference and the content it referenced came from a blog, which doesn't fall under WP:RS, so I will be reverting that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry- I've been so focused that I've lost track of checking this page. Thank you, and I understand your reason for removal. I included her because she has actively contacted media, by name, with information, so I thought she was important to include.

After reading thru all your references, I am of the opinion that you need to rewrite this section, taking out ALL the names. Altho the particular administrators you named were guilty of very poor judgement, this article is about the school, which is who was found negligent, NOT the individual administrators. They have not been found guilty of any crime and hence mentioning them by name is not appropriate. As a matter of fact, I see nothing to indicate the accused teacher has been found guilty of anything yet, and his name should not be in there either. You can write about what happened without mentioning the names very well and it won't sound nearly so much like you are on a mission, which, I believe is the other editors problem with what you have written.Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If you follow my suggestion above, it will cut down on the size of the Controversy section also, which as it stands now, is way too big in relation to the size of the article. It puts too much weight on a single incident in the entire history of the school, which altho it is important, it does not overshadow everything else about the school.Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

about: primary sources|date=October 2009 npov|date=September 2012 copypaste|date=September 2012

I'm wondering which of the above are still issues. I think we've mostly resolved the primary source problem? I do not know how to check for copypaste. I think NPOV is fine to stay

First pls remember to sign you talk page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. The copyvio tag is still valid as the campus section is almost a direct copy paste from here. That section is also unreferenced, so it needs to be rewritten, paraphrasing the website rather than copying it. When you do that, lose the promotional type language, and don't forget to reference the school's webpage. Secondly, a large amount of the article is still sourced to the school website, so the primary source tag is still valid. The only one that may go is the npov, but you shouldn't delete it and I won't. I would rather the editor that placed it remove it.Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminders! I'll see when I can address those, if I'm even capable of it, haha. Oh, and thank you so much for all your help! It means a lot, especially the wiki-fying.--Treeees (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)