Jump to content

Talk:St. Patrick Catholic High School (Biloxi, Mississippi)

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

Rich history

[edit]

If it was founded as recently a 2007, how is its history rich? Chasnor15 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved and renamed in 2007 after Hurricane Katrina destroyed the original building. --24.119.21.78 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

Anonymous editor 50.86.54.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed the "Controversy" section with this edit and a summary of "Most of this information is false and puts bad light in the school." The information that was removed is clearly cited by credible sources. Maybe they should look at the citations first before removing. I am encouraging discussion for the IP here instead of continuing to revert; that is the point of the BRD process. Eyesnore 14:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epaldrich1991 and C.Fred: I'm trying to discuss here by reaching involved contributors so that the issue does not escalate into an edit war. I encourage discussion for all involved editors whether or not to keep the "Controversy" section of the article despite being cited by multiple credible sources. Eyesnore 00:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the burden is plainly on Epaldrich1991 to provide a policy-based reason to remove the text. We don't remove material because it "shines a bad light" on the subject. The number of sources make it hard to believe the information is false. They'll need to give specific examples of how what's in the article doesn't agree with what's in the source, or give sources that contradict the ones we have now. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, and I'm not opposed to integrating the 'Controversy' section into the 'Background' section and turning it into a 'History' (or keep it Background or something similar) section. I suggest this because I've learned it's bad practice to have a 'Controversy' section and it would maybe help the article "flow" better. Owellway (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved editor, I think the inclusion of the letter is a bit too far (probably also copyright infringing). Also, I do think {{Criticism section}} applies. This should probably be taken to the NPOV noticeboard. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 18:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]