Talk:Army and Navy Academy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inappropriate edits[edit]

There is alot of inaccurate facts on this page, Brown never replaced Army and Navy Academy, they just bought the original campus. Brown closed in 1958 not 1982. This page was originally created for the San Diego Army and Navy Academy not Army and Navy Academy. This page should not be blocked to those cadets and alumni of the Academy so that the real information can be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.10.93 (talk) 12:50, February 22, 2008 (UTC)

This article is being edited by someone from the school who's putting in a bunch of useless and spurious information without any sources for their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.199.183 (talk) 02:47, July 29, 2008 (UTC)

Current staff at the school, in light of recent lawsuits and molestation charges brought up against one of their employees and various other charges brought forth against another employee who is now on the run from law enforcment, are editing this page in an attempt to hide such facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.114.189 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More questionable claims[edit]

None of the deleted purported "notable alumni" may have attended the school, since their Wikipedia articles don't mention them and no sourcing was given the verify that they did. Editors cannot just throw in names of people they think went there. That's violating the core policy of WP:VERIFY. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army and Navy Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Discussion of the Controversies section is necessary because the inclusion of this content appears to be developing into an edit war. Bringing to the conversation the users who most recently worked on, Hatman31, and removed the section, Tierus. In my opinion, given that reliable sources are used, describing allegations of abuse and the associated lawsuits does not violate neutrality. Section should be kept. The help of a more experienced editor would be appreciated, since this is a delicate subject. Alan Islas (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since no other editor opposed the opinion that the material in the Controversies section should be included. Will add it back. If edit war continues, guidance from an administrator can be sought. --Alan Islas (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice are very clear on why this content should not be included. "Wikipedia articles about schools must be neutral. The purpose is not to bring shame to educational institutions. Any such additions will be removed by the School Project coordinators or any other editor. The fact that such activities may be reported in the press is no business of an encyclopedia. Persistent reinsertion of such content may result in sanctions for the editor. See: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV,and WP:BLPCRIME." Based on these guidelines, I will be removing the material in the Controversies section again. Tierus (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see this information as perfectly acceptable for this page. The information is well sourced and relevant to the page. It takes up a small portion of the page so it does not seem undue. Finally the school does not get to choose what is in the article that is concerning them. We base that information on relevant sources.--VVikingTalkEdits 19:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started a talk page section about that guideline (which seems incredibly vague to me) on WT:WPSCH. In general, the idea that any information about abuse or hazing perpetrated by teachers or students at a school should be excluded from its wiki page seems wrong to me; whether the cases which took place at this school meet the standard to be included here is another discussion (I lean yes at the moment). Hatman31 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel like it is a pretty strong "no". It's a news event that has little to do with an understanding of the subject at hand. It's not current as the alleged incidents occurred two decades ago or more, and it seems irrelevant to the school's program or history. It's lurid tabloid information that seems very much at odds with the goal of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. I think you were spot on about re-requesting sources for organizational claims, though and was going to work on that when time permits. Tierus (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that perpetuating a culture of hazing and/or abuse is irrelevant to a school's program or history is wrong; the only question about whether it should be included is based on whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources of the acts in question to justify its inclusion, and before it was removed, the section under discussion had 7 references to mainstream news sites. The idea that sexual abuse is "tabloid information" is also incorrect; while they may be of interest to tabloids, sexual abuse and hazing are serious issues which are routinely covered on Wikipedia when relevant as well. Hatman31 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already expressed my opinion at the start of this discussion, but would like to add a few things. First, the events are current, since press coverage continues, and the accused plead guilty just in Nov 2021. Also, since I believe it is very relevant to the discussion, I'm copying the the comments by Stedil to the topic started by Hatman31 on WT:WPSCH talk page, with my own responses in italics and parenthesis:
"This section cautions editors against incorporating every single news story related to a school, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALASP. Whether or not an event such as hazing should be included depends on the significance of the event within the context of the school's history. Was the event covered in multiple reliable sources? (Yes) Did newspapers outside the school's locale cover the event? (Yes, see LA Times article ) Did the event have a lasting impact on the school? (I don't know, but I would think so, given the duration and notability of the legal proceedings) Does coverage of the event pass the WP:10YEARTEST? (I lean yes. Plus the content being discussed not unduly lengthy, and 10 years from now these events will still hold the appropriate space within the history of the school) These are the questions I ask myself when deciding whether to include an event in the history section of a school's article"
Hope this helps in the present discussion. Alan Islas (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about inclusion of the controversies section[edit]

Should the content in the Controversies section be included in the article? That is, should the accusations of "hazing, rape, a culture of abuse, and bullying" be included in the article? Also, should the charges of child molestation against a former administrator at Army Navy Academy, as well as the trial, be included? See discussion above. Alan Islas (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps you might want to clarify? It's easier to answer specific questions. 174.212.227.192 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)j[reply]
      • Alan Islas, please remove the WP:BLP violation from your post. You cannot say anything negative about a living person without a high quality source, and as this guy is neither notable or famous, you can't name him, period. BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even the back pages. 174.212.227.192 (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you are misreading those policies. Could you link to the specific section which you believe supports your interpretation? Hatman31 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Hatman31, if you want the content in, it is up to you to make arguments for it. Unless you can gain consensus for including it, it's out. It isn't up to me, or anyone else to make an argument for non-inclusion. 174.212.236.66 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the content should be included because is mentioned in multiple reliable sources and I do not believe the section as written gave the events undue weight. Could you re-read and answer my original question? Hatman31 (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        My vote is below. Your arguments are not convincing. Again the burden is on you to GAIN a consensus, not on me to prove it shouldn't. 174.212.236.66 (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        What would convince you? Hatman31 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could be convinced to include A sentence about it in the history section, that only discusses the school's role in this and names no names, sourced to a distant newspaper or a reputable magazine. Having a separate section in itself is UNDUE. Discussion in detail in itself is a violation of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. 174.212.236.66 (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          It seems reasonable to put the content in the history section instead of a separate one. I don't know about limiting it to a single sentence, just because it may be difficult to phrase one cleanly. How about something like: "In the 2000s and 2010s, the Academy faced several lawsuits alleging hazing and/or sexual abuse,[1][2][3][4], most of which were settled out of court.[5] In 2013, a former administrator was arrested and charged with molesting students,[6] acts which critics of the school argued it could have done more to prevent.[7] In 2017, the academy settled a lawsuit by one of the victims of the alleged abuse for $1.75 million dollars.[8][9][10]" Note that these sources include the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and Baltimore Sun, at least two of which ought to be "distant" enough for you. Hatman31 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - inclusion of the prior controversy section as written as a clear WP:BLP issue (see FAMOUS). 174.212.227.192 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The content is still ongoing, well sourced, and should be of interest to readers. I don't see why an educational institution should get a "Get out of jail free" card. If inclusion if such content (reliably sourced) reduces the instance of rape, hazing, and abuse, it should be included. If inclusion of such content does reduce that problem, it would be criminal to exclude it. Even if it does damage to the institution. Adakiko (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adakiko, do you have a policy based argument? Because generally when an administrator closes an RfC, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes are disregarded. Also, the hyperbole is not helpful. No criminal charges will result from this discussion no matter how it turns out, and your implication that others in this discussion might be acting on behalf of the article's subject borders on a personal attack. Oh, and if this is still ongoing, that's an argument NOT to include it. We aren't a newspaper and coverage of ongoing situations should be omitted until they resolve. 174.212.236.66 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PR piece[edit]

This is an encyclopedia article about a school. It is not for the school nor is it a place to write what you may think you know about this school. Stuff included in this article have to be of import to people not associated with the school and you need to show that by providing references that are independent of the school. It isn't a place for the school to communicate, nor us it a place for people connected to the school to communicate.

The RfC above isn't clear, but unless the controversial stuff was about the school itself, not people associated with the school, it doesn't belong. Example: a teacher getting popped for something outside the school is completely off topic. His name CANNOT be mentioned (see FAMOUS). If a teacher had an affair with a student, it's likely out (names are definitely out). It's only in if the school covered it up, and that fact was noted both over a period of time and over a wide distance. Generally names in school articles should be limited to the current head of the school, the corporate head of a private school, a private school's founder, the school's namesake, and people who have biographies on Wikipedia. 174.212.227.192 (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Army_and_Navy_Academy&oldid=1199004728"