Talk:Baraboo High School

Nazi salute

In this edit I clarified that many in the group photo saluted - because quite a few did not. It's a minor point but we should make it clear that it was many not all. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole, I agree. I had undone the edit because "many" seemed to be an unverified exaggeration to me. I have now replaced it by "some", but that again may be an understatement. Maybe someone has a better idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole, I see that you have replaced it by "many" again. Hm. In your edit summary, you suggested "most", which can be objective (contrary to "some" or "many"). Would you mind actually using that term instead? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much,  Done -- my non-native-speaker feeling says that it should be "most of them"; if that's true, feel free to improve further ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: the removal here it would be good to establish at what point the event should be described in this article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it is supposed to cover the news so long as it's not trivial/unimportant news. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper says:

• "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia"

I do think the essay User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS makes a good point in arguing that if WP:NOTNEWS is used as a rationale, it would be good to explain why the news is trivial or tabloid journalism.

The question is whether it is important/significant enough to post. I don't have a judgment yet on whether this should be posted or not, but we need to determine how we know when is the time to post it: evidence of long-lasting consequences for the school? Legal actions? Changes in the school's administration? Comments from state or national political figures? @John from Idegon:@Anthonyhcole:@ToBeFree: WhisperToMe (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• WhisperToMe, minimumly, it would need to be the subject of long term, widespread coverage. Generally, some change would need to occur. This is rooted in policy. IMO, that change would need to be beyond local. Outside of comments from political leaders, none of that could even possibly occur, as this (whatever it is) wasn't illegal and didn't occur at a school function. My primary problem with this is topicality, which IMO it completely lacks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I'm a bit disappointed about the undiscussed complete deletion of a section that multiple editors have been working and discussing on to ensure verifiability and understandability of the material. I agree about deleting the incident from the lead section, but the issue here seems to be lack of other information rather than the existence of recent information. The text of Template:Recentism says the same, and it does not suggest deletion of recent information. Neither does WP:NOTNEWS, which recommends against "original reporting", which I pointed out with "Original Research" tags twice and has been fixed promptly. The incident does also not seem to be a "routine" news reporting.

That all said, keeping it deleted is okay with me, but seeing it happen with a sledgehammer approach made me sad. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the complete removal, and I doubt it will remain as such once protections are lifted. Just to add some policy guidance, editors discussing the restoration of this controversy section–and how much of it to include–should consider the policy on Neutral Point of View, specifically Balancing aspects. Cheers, Pegnawl (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the school. How does what a bunch of schoolkids did outside of the school have any relevance here? And yes , NOTNEWS and also WP:RECENT are very relevant to this discussion. First, what can the possible consequences be? Nothing. Like it or not, the kids have every right to appear in a public place and make Nazi gestures. Last I looked Wisconsin was still in the US, and the constitutional protection afforded free speech has long been held to include gestures. Posting it on the school website is another matter, but the extent of the coverage that might merit would be to report that the school removed it. An encyclopedia is supposed to take a long view on things, not report every little thing that occurs. And in the bigger picture of things, this is definitely a little thing. What can possibly change because of this? Again, nothing. Kids engaged in a legal activity, no matter how poor their judgment was to be doing it. The school had no part in their activity, it did not occur at the school and the school did exactly the right thing in response to it. We don't add to the General Motors article every time one of their employees gets busted for something, do we? Every year there are schools where kids engage in illegal behavior outside school, even preceding school events. This isn't even illegal. It simply isn't relevant, and it lacks the long term, widespread discussion that an event generally would have to have to be included in any social geography type article. In the bigger picture, this is trivial in extreameus. John from Idegon (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And Pegnawl, I would strongly suggest that copy not be added on this topic "once protection is lifted" as you have threatened. The content should be discussed until a consensus is reached and nothing added until that time. To do otherwise would be WP:TE. And please explain how NPOV applies to removing this? It isn't even on topic for the article. John from Idegon (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally add it back since it adds undue weight to the entry, per the policy I cited. I actually agree with you on most points, and yes, if copy were to be restored, it should be discussed here first. But don't kid yourself - IP editors will show up and add it back once the protection is lifted, and they will resurface anytime the meme makes the rounds. Pegnawl (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the content should not be restored as it does not pertain to the topic at hand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's absolutely ridiculous that coverage of this incident, which whether you like it or not, is 100% related to this school (as per its Junior Prom, as per everyone on the picture), has been removed. This school is making international headlines. The consequences for the school are already visible and this horrific photo will be remembered for quite a long time. Auschwitz Memorial has spoken out about it in no unclear terms. This incident comes only weeks after an anti-semitic massacre in the USA. And then some editor gets his way removing all this information with a non-argument like "wikipedia is not a newspaper"? Unbelievable that this has been allowed. It should have been blocked from editing BEFORE John from Idegon started his edit-war, not right after that. John from Idegon tries to muddy the waters by making original claims that it's "legal" or that the school had "no part" in this or acted "exactly right", but that's his subjective conclusion and on Wikipedia it is not up to him to decide, also it is irrelevant as to the international importance of this event. If Trump made a nazi-salute it would be legal too, that wouldn't make it any less relevant for inclusion in his Wikipedia article. This is NOT "a little thing", the responses worldwide already show that. Look at this BBC News coverage for instance to see how the arguments of John from Idegon do not apply: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46195299 Please reinstate the section about this incident and ongoing news event as soon as possible, this removal of important information followed by edit protection is truly a disgrace for the neutrality of English Wikipedia. Zorba1968 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The school district is investigating the photo https://wsau.com/news/articles/2018/nov/12/baraboo-school-district-investigating-student-photo/ - Also protection requiring "autoconfirmed or confirmed access" was applied on 03:43, 13 November 2018, while the content removal was on 14:27, 13 November 2018. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

First off, this is new content. New content is always subject to consensus. I see nothing that was here on this page where the propriety of including this content was discussed prior to my removal of it. Hence, there exists no consensus to include it. Disputed new content stays out until a consensus is reached on what if anything to include. So please all the newer editors complaining about the removal of the disputed content, please concentrate on the problem at hand. NOTNEWS and RECENT certainly apply, but my primary objection here is the topicality. This article is about the school institution. It isn't about the students who attended the school. This event occurred outside of school hours, it occurred at a location other than the school, and although the students involved were gathered together because of a school event, it did not occur at the school event. So, again, please explain how this is in any way about the school. None of the sources tie the school to this in any way.

The argument that this is not a newspaper is spot on. News reports about a recent event are PRIMARY sources. There simply has not been enough time for any analysis to occur. Encyclopedia articles are tertiary. Secondary sources are required to show any event is encyclopedic, and they simply do not, and can not exist. Significance of events are indicated by the changes they bring about. Since the kids actions did not occur when they were under the school's jurisdiction, there is nothing they can do (short of adding curricular activities to increase the kids awareness). The kids behavior is constitutionally protected, so there will be no legal consequences. None of this rises to the.level of encyclopedic content.

Please can the hyperbole. There is nothing on God's green earth "horrific" about that. photo. Horrific is having your entire town destroyed around you. Horrific is having a government so incapable of caring for its own soldiers that a man suffering from war-induced PTSD goes into an establishment and murders 10 people. Ill-advised, stupid, insensitive...those are appropriate descriptors. This was sorta a thing yesterday and today. Far from a big thing, tho. The California fires and the Thousand Oaks shooting, the ongoing controversies about the election, that's far bigger. And quite unlike this event, those events all have far reaching consequences.

We don't have anything to write about here, at this time. If for some bizarre reason this is still being widely discussed 6 weeks from now, maybe. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That there is no debate (yet) on new content doesn't mean it is disputed or that there may not be a consensus or that it is up to you to one-sidedly remove it. If you were interested in consensus you should have started a debate here, rather than reverting edits from several other contributors. "Disputed new content stays out" does not give you a free pass to remove what other contributors see as highly relevant sections, at will. You don't own this article. If you think there is a dispute, you come to the talk page first. Further, your arguments about topicality make little sense, frankly:

1. "This article is about the school institution. It isn't about the students who attended the school." These two are always related, the behaviour of both students and personnel of this school are necessarily a (big) part of what this institution is. This is also why many schools have alumni sections, f.i. or mention past results by school teams, etc. The fact that this is not a single student or a very small group, but about 50 students in the picture, makes it even more relevant.
2. "None of the sources tie the school to this in any way." Factually untrue. All the sources I've seen mention the school very prominently actually. The school has also started an investigation together with police. So this is most definitely tied to the school. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. The location of events outside the building does not mean that the event was not related to it; there are more relations in this world than just location or proximity, such as all the people on the picture being students at this school and the picture being taken in relation to a prominent event at school.
3. Several news reports such as the BBC News article are not primary sources, they are secondary. The photograph itself and associated tweets are the primary sources. Because of the high importance of this event, it was picked up by major news channels internationally (and at the same time, de facto censored by Wikipedia...). Various news reports give an overview of what happened and what the responses were. These responses come from many sources such as politicians, Auschwitz Birkenau Memorial and Museum, an interview with a student in the picture not participating, etc. Very clearly a secondary source, therefore.
4. "Since the kids actions did not occur when they were under the school's jurisdiction, there is nothing they can do" That is your personal opinion which you offer without any evidence, which you're entitled to, but as such your personal opinion has no bearing on these events and how they are reported and received around the world. Police and the school started an investigation is what the facts are, so far: Baraboo School district superintendent Lori Mueller wrote in a letter sent to parents Monday: "If the gesture is what it appears to be, the district will pursue any and all available and appropriate actions, including legal, to address the issue." Again this also is evidence of how this event is definitely related to the school institution. And as such, again, belongs on this page.
5. Apparently the picture is not horrific to you, which again is a personal opinion you're entitled to, but is pretty irrelevant for Wikipedia. The picture has been described in similar terms by all sorts of secondary sources, and that is what Wikipedia is about, not how you personally feel about it. Also, that other news events might be more important is of no relevance to this particular Wikipedia entry; also, that is not for you to decide on your own.
6. Whether a news event is discussed six weeks later is not particularly relevant to whether it belongs on this page. A lot of history is not discussed often but still relevant.
7. It would be nice in general if you displayed a more cooperative and constructive behaviour rather than an authoritarian and destructive approach. It was clear that several contributors disagreed with you. If anything, there was no consensus on your removal of this section, and there was polite debate on how to organize the section.

Zorba1968 (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As per "Since the kids actions did not occur when they were under the school's jurisdiction, there is nothing they can do" - My understanding is that school districts can, and do, punish students for actions they take off campus. Online bullying is one, and committing a criminal act outside of campus is another. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

From the Baraboo High School Student Handbook there is a section called "Out of School Conduct" beginning on page 27, defined as "conduct which occurs while not at school or under the supervision of a school authority" - the district can punish a student for such conduct if it has "a direct and immediate adverse on the discipline and welfare of the school". This includes "Acts of disrespect towards school authorities and teachers" and "Fighting or other violent or disruptive acts towards school personnel including pupils". I could see how they could interpret them to go after these students. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on whether to include the Nazi Salute Incident in the article

Frankly, I am a little confused as to why this version of the article has been granted full protection status, and why the admin who performed this action @Dlohcierekim: hasn't instigated a (directly relevant) discussion on the conflict dispute at hand.

Per WP:CON, the collaborative product of multiple editors, should not be unilaterally removed by one individual editor without first achieving consensus (in this case, John from Idegon) . This is unimportant, though, as I'm sure he was acting in WP:GOOD FAITH, and as such I'll try to instigate a more direct discussion.

As of this version the section was well-sourced, and there is a sufficient variety of international coverage from numerous reliable sources - The New York Times, CTV News, CNN, BBC, and The Guardian to name a few. The incident was also notable enough that it has caught the attention of numerous politicians, including thegovernor elect of Wisconsin, amongst others.

This event going viral on social media does not mean it should not be included - that is a fundamental misinterpretation of what WP:NOTNEWS tries to establish. It is clear that the event, per the sources linked above, has impacted multiple realms beyond "local news" - it has had a political impact, and it is irrefutable that the event will clearly have some form of longterm impact not only on how the school is run/the culture of the school, but also the culture of the region and the community. The statements of local leadership reflect this: [1] [2]. How, then, could this not be worthy of any mention whatsoever? How is including the content so outrageous that it requires full page protection?

I can understand the merit behind weighting concerns per WP:UNDUE, but those problems could be remedied by working to improve the section and article to more accurately reflect a NPOV – not completely deleting, without seeking consensus, the entire section, much the less any mention of the event from the article altogether. In fact, doing so probably assigns at least as much undue weight to other parts of the article as keeping it would. I'd humbly request, for all those reasons, that we reinstate the reversion linked above, or otherwise include some mention of the incident. Flip^andFlopped ツ 23:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't seen that there was another entry in this debate. I agree completely with everything you stated. This incident is highly significant and needs to be part of this entry ASAP. I also agree that there are concerns about how much space this incident should get on this page, but that's a debate for the talk page. In keeping the ENglish Wikipedia neutral, I strongly urge the administrator to undo John from Idegon's reckless deleting and stimulate debate about this issue, rather than rewarding what he has done, as is the case now. Zorba1968 (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been on CNN. It's notable. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Noticeboard entry

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Baraboo High School regarding a possible conflict of interest incident. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

In doing some browsing in relation to the article I have found the following two alumni who have Wikipedia articles and for whom I could find a source saying they attended/graduated from Baraboo High School:

• Walter Terry Source
• Tiny Cahoon Source

When the article is unprotected an interested editor might wish to add these alumni to the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Be happy to, and thanks for working to improve the quality of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of current events

Just to add more evidence for the relevance of including some content about the Nazi Salute event, it also gets reported in Israel, and again includes an overview of events, analysis and synthesis, so it's a secondary source, not a primary source: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/auschwitz-memorial-slams-wisconsin-boys-for-mass-nazi-salute-1.6652978

Also, once more, the argument that this incident would not be related to the instution that this school is, or that the school could not do anything, is completely destroyed by this: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/male-students-apparent-nazi-salute-prompts-investigation-1.6650677

Also, adding some further relevance and context is this: "It’s not the first time Baraboo High School students have been accused of using racially controversial symbols. In 2012, a group of students drove trucks around displaying Confederate battle flags to commemorate a friend who was killed in a car crash. The students removed the flags at the request of school officials. Many associate the flag with slavery, segregation and white supremacy."

Perhaps some mention of this can be included or combined with the 2018 event in an updated article, which is now long overdue. It would be very nice if some more positive information about this school would also be added, but the lack thereof in itself should not and can not mean that a negative event directly associated with the school is de facto censored.

Zorba1968 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Rough consensus for option 4. There were slightly more editors favoring some coverage of the controversy, and those preferring no coverage did so based on WP:RECENTISM which relates more to the extent of coverage, and Wikipedia being not being a newspaper, an argument aptly countered by arguments from Zorba1968 and WhisperToMe. Preference by several respondents for option 1 were considered against valid, policy based concerns about WP:BLP and the fact that the subject of the article is the school, not its students.- MrX 🖋 19:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

---

As this discussion is rapidly spinning out of control (witness multiple sections being opened on the same topic and attempts to centralize the discussion being reverted), it appears a more formal (and widely publicized) solution is in order.

The question is:

What if anything should we include at this time on the "Nazi salute controversy"?

It's also fairly clear we have four choices:

1. Some variation (subject to discussion on the finer points) of what existed here.
2. Nothing.
3. Nothing for now, revisiting in say three months so we can accurately gauge the enduring nature of this information.
4. A brief discussion of the school itself's role in this.

Please indicate your preferences in order from the one that most suits your position to the least suitable, along with your arguments.

Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Poll

• 3,2,4 - per my arguments above, the actions of the students on their own time have no bearing on the subject of the school. This information is off-topic. It's also NOTNEWS content, and considering there is nothing else whatsoever on the school's history, RECENT and UNDUE. I am willing to look at this content down the road to weigh whether there is anything about the school's role in the incident that has received ongoing widespread coverage and weigh that alone against the other content in the article to gauge whether NOTNEWS, UNDUE and RECENT still apply. I find choice one totally unacceptable per the reasoning already stated. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is a noteworthy event with significant national and international media coverage, so not mentioning the event just because it reflects poorly on the school would be nothing short of a whitewash.

The question, then, is how many words should we devote to it. I haven't looked at developments in the last 24 hours but, if not much has changed, then with good writing we should be able to distill all the deleted facts down to one concise paragraph.

We can prevent this article from just being a story about the NAZI salute by adding a lot more relevant, well-sourced content - the solution is not to erase this distasteful event from the Wikipedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Reflecting badly on the school are your words, Anthonyhcole, and do not reflect any argument made by anyone in opposition of this content. Please strike that. Please explain how actions of people not at the school, that did not occur during a school event is about the school. The school had no prior knowledge of this, did not cover it up or excuse it after the event. And then there's the whole question of enduring importance, which of course we cannot gauge at this time. It is overwhelmingly negative, that is indisputable. Waiting until we can gauge the long-term significance seems prudent, especially considering the long-standing guidance offered by WP:NODEADLINE. We do not have to rush to print like news sources, and prudently waiting would give time for further content development here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE is as much an argument for the opposite approach, if not more. Waiting until we can gauge the long-term significance can last forever and people may not agree on what is long-term or what is significant; this is already clear right now. The article can always be changed in the future to reflect what is the lasting significance of this event, based on consensus. Also WP:WIP argues for that approach. Content does not need to be developed on a talk page first, contributors should be able to make edits in good faith rather than being stonewalled by a never-ending discussion about prudency while the article is locked. Zorba1968 (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• 1,4,3,2 The many sources presented by FlipandFlopped are ample evidence that the school itself is involved in this ("the district will pursue any and all available and appropriate actions, including legal, to address the issue"). This school - not just the people in the photo - has received international attention because of this photograph and thus this can not be off-topic in an article about this school. NOTNEWS does not mean recent news coverage has no place on Wikipedia, some good points on this were made earlier and have not been addressed. "Ongoing widespread coverage" is not needed. WP:RECENT would only apply if this new information would drown out other information on the page, but that is not the case here. WP:UNDUE should be about how much text this controversy deserves, not about removing it completely. A constructive approach would be to add other interesting information about this school; not to try and prevent this particular information from appearing.

Apart from this poll though, the first question to be addressed is why this article is on full protection as per your request. Nothing in the article history indicates enough severity for such a measure; you may find information off-topic but it is clearly not completely off-topic and definitely something up for debate, as this talk page proves. Also, reverting other people's contributions should only be used as a last resort or in urgent or high-profile cases; neither were the case here.

Also, I do not think a poll is the way to resolve this conflict. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Many arguments as to why this controversy is directly related to the school and of significant importance have been made, these arguments actually provide sources, something that you did not do and to which you did not respond. It seems very clear to me that contributions to this page were done in good faith and reverts were uncalled for, especially when followed by a request for protection that only claims "completely off-topic content", something that many people on this talk page clearly do not quite agree with. There are issues here with WP:RV (no previous talk discussion, nor a good explanation) and WP:STONEWALLING.

Therefore, I'd like to write in 5. in this poll: unlock the article, revert back as per 1. and then argue on this talk page how the disputed section should appear, how detailed it is, what events should be mentioned and which not, preferably properly sourced and explained by WP guidelines and policies. The idea is to talk first, and not to revert first. The reasoning as to why 1. would be "totally unacceptable" has seen considerable counterarguments and in some cases has even been proven untrue by the unfolding of events and this has not properly been addressed yet. Zorba1968 (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Unconcerned comment as I was dragged into this discussion unwillingly Apparently whoever (did not bother looking) posted the snark questioning why I protected whatever version it was at when I protected the page know's nothing of page protection. First I don't care one way or another which version is chosen. That is for the editors of the page to decide. The purpose of page protection is to stop the disruption that was taking place. Second, I don't care which version is chosen. If I had an opinion and protected my preferred version, that would be abuse of my tools. If you come to a consensus, you can ping me for unprotection. Thanks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes says "administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war." There was no edit war - as I have outlined clearly on your talk page. One editor ignoring WP:BRD with one edit does not a war make. You have been gamed into full-protecting this page by an editor so that editor can win a content dispute. Please accept that fact and restore the page to semi-protection; and in future pay more attention to what you're doing with page protection. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In an attempt to clear the air, in case the mentioned snark is about one of my earlier comments, let it be clear that I didn't question any administrator's decision specifically, let alone his/her integrity in doing so. I'm sorry if some of my comments came across that way. The intent of my comments was that I take offence at the entire procedure initiated by one user, that effectively results in that one user being able to lock a page with two reverts, instead of said user first looking for consensus. I agree that it is up to the editors which version is chosen, but exactly that was made impossible because of the full protection. Zorba1968 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• 1,4,3,2 Per my arguments in the section above, there is ample international media coverage (NYT, CNN, BBC, etc) as well as clear evidence that this event will have a long-term impact on the culture of the high school and the local community which surrounds it. I agree that it should be assigned WP:DUEWEIGHT but to argue that such a widely covered event which directly relates to the high school (as per the statements of high school and board of education officials comments on the matter, where they establish an explicit link between the two) does not even deserve a mention defies WP:COMMON. Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• 1,4,3,2 - Based on the title of "Twitter recap: World's eyes on Baraboo Hi, notgh School after Nazi salute photo goes viral" and how there was "a flurry of worldwide attention on the Wisconsin school district." I'm getting convinced that something of this needs to be mentioned. It can still focus mainly on the school's reaction, but unfortunately this is what the school and the associated district are becoming known for (note that WEIGHT focuses on the balance of reliable, non-trivial secondary sources about a subject, and the salute controversy may make up much of the coverage from non-local sources) - I agree however with Anthonyhcole that the controversy shouldn't be the bulk of the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• 3, 4, 2 - This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so what is the rush, and it is not clear to me that this event belongs,in more than a very peripheral way, in this article. - Donald Albury 17:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• 2 - per Wikipedia:Recentism and NOTNEWS. Prime example of editors reporting on a controversy as it happens, as if Wikipedia was a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. What those young men did six months ago on a Saturday in May on the county courthouse steps has nothing to do with the subject of this article. This stupid stunt does not improve the article in the least bit. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Isaidnoway: WP:NOTNEWS is a misnomer: Wikipedia is news. This guideline means to say it's not unimportant news (as in not all kinds of news should be published, just the important stuff). As part of my observations of what attracts people to editing Wikipedia is the ability to update information about major events in real-time, and taking that away takes contributors away from a website that publicly is asking for more. I visited the Newseum in Washington, DC, and one of the things stated there is "News is the first draft of history" or something to that effect. I can say that we need to allow editors to update articles as they happen, and obstructing that hurts Wikipedia as a project in terms of content and in terms of its relationship with the public. The content can always be changed/modified later. Based off of my repeated observations of NOTNEWS being misused, I might propose renaming it.
  • Re: "What those young men did six months ago on a Saturday in May on the county courthouse steps has nothing to do with the subject of this article." - Except as I found in the handbook and from statements, the students' behaviors reflect on the school, and reliable sources have made the connection.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but it isn't necessary, this is not open for debate, for me anyway. The student's behavior does not reflect on the school, it would only reflect on the school if their school curriculum included teaching this sort of behavior, and I certainly haven't seen any reliable sources state that the school educates their students to behave like this. And it didn't happen during school hours or on school property. Naturally, the media reached out to the school for a comment and they obliged. Those kids alone are responsible for their behavior and what they did, and it reflects upon themselves that they showed poor judgement in behaving stupidly. Kids do stupid shit all the time and just because it can be sourced and verified does not mean it's suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Their stupidity doesn't improve the article, nor does the reader benefit from reading what some young men did six months ago on a Saturday in May on the county courthouse steps. I stand behind my !vote 100%. I'm just one man giving one opinion in this RfC. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand it's just one point of view, but nonetheless I feel it's important to respond to it. As for the point "and I certainly haven't seen any reliable sources state that the school educates their students to behave like this" - literature about schools do not only talk about the formal curriculum but also the overall atmosphere: an article about the Jennifer Pan case described the culture of her high school, and so I added the author's statements to the article. To address Baraboo High itself, there's an article from the British newspaper The Independent "Wisconsin schoolboys in Nazi salute photo ‘shouted white power after Trump elected’, former student claims" which talked about allegations of this behavior happening at the school (I have no way to know whether this is true, but this shows that there is now a direct allegation in relation to the behavior of members of the student body and against school administrators for not curtailing it). "Black Baraboo student says he's worn headphones to drown out N-word at school" seems to be talking about the town culture in general and not the school in particular. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• 1 -- Include an appropriate amount of detail, per RS coverage. Summoned by bot. Per WP:RS and WP:DUE, it is clear that this is a notable event in the life of the school, and is part of a larger series of controversies in the United States on these topics. According to the RS, this is significant event in the life of the school, involving a large number of students 1, at a major school event 12, and sparked a significant reaction from the community, parents, international observers 123. Many voices here have made an argument that this doesn't reflect on the school's educational program, etc., but neither does a school shooting, yet we would include that in a school page. Regardless of the impassioned arguments, I look to the sources for this. Both the RS and the people involved are treating it as part of the life of the school. To apply the WP:RECENT test, a historian in ten years will likely discuss that 2017-18 were characterized by ongoing controversies of this type, so it is likely it would get mentioned in the history of the school. To follow WP:RECENT and WP:DUE, we should probably keep it to about a paragraph. Chris vLS (talk)
• 3 - look again in a few months per WP:NOTNEWS and it’s just WP:TOOSOON to evaluate if this is just viral du jour without any enduring content. Also, WP:SENSATIONAL, this seems more tabloid than encyclopedic material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• 4, because of my WP:BLP concerns. The school is not alive, and I don't care about the school. But the students involved are alive, are callow, and some will regret all this. And they'll be able to put it behind them as it will recede into the dim past -- except here, where stuff is enshrined for all time, possibly. On the other hand, the students are not named here. On the other other hand, they can be identified by following sources that lead from here. If it wasn't for that, I'd include it. It tells something about an important change going on in America in the late 2010s, and the involvement of this school's student body in all this was, for a time, notable enough to attract considerable attention. Herostratus (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_persons_and_groups states that
    • "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. "
  • The Baraboo High student body as a whole is a very large group, so IMO it is less of a BLP issue with the school in and of itself. The BLP applicability is with the students photographed, as they are a much smaller group.
  • Anyway, because the subject now has its own Wikipedia article, IMO this RFC has run its course.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

---

There is now a separate article, so I think the obvious solution here would be one sentence or maybe two, with a link to that article. Herostratus (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restore semi-protection

On User:Dlohcierekim's talk page and above on this article's talk page I and User:Zorba1968 have asked that full page protection be lifted. There is no policy-based reason for this level of protection. Policy allows an admin to impose full page protection to end an ongoing edit war. There was no ongoing edit war. Dlohcierekim, please lift the improperly-imposed full protection now, so we can get on with editing this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It does seem that the protection was premature. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean now, User:Dlohcierekim. Don't drag this out. You have been gamed by John who lied to you, telling you there was an edit war (when there was none) over content that is irrelevant to this article (when the content is obviously relevant), and editors were refusing to discuss (see the above discussion). It happens to the best admins. What you must do now, though, is correct your mistake in a timely manner when it is pointed out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Dlohcierekim [1] I was more aggressive toward you than was appropriate. Sorry. Obviously, the target of my irritation is elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: ANd obviously, when I read this talk page, there is no consensus here for you preferred version. Good day.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Be more careful in future with PP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

NAZI salute content restored to the article

[2] Discuss. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

[3] I've shrunk it to one paragraph. Feel free to revert or modify. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

One paragraph IMO is enough. Plus I can find additional info on the school that has nothing to do with the incident so the "weight" of the particular paragraph is reduced. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a very fair compromise pending the ongoing consensus discussion. Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that one paragraph is enough and the content looks good. Perhaps it would be wise, to avoid further controversy, to make it read "apparent Nazi salute" or a similar wording? Several news outlets use that wording and there seems to be some debate about it, mostly coming from the photographer who appears to have initiated the gesture. As reported here, f.i.: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/13/opinions/wisconsin-teens-apparent-nazi-salute-filipovic/index.html Zorba1968 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added "apparent". It's a good "CYA" on the matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all that content you added, WhisperToMe. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The British newspaper The Independent posted an article "Wisconsin schoolboys in Nazi salute photo ‘shouted white power after Trump elected’, former student claims" which describes students making allegations that there was a clique at the school that espoused white supremacist rhetoric and that the school administration chose to ignore the issue. I'm not sure how much weight this should have, and I am aware there are just allegations, but I do think including this content would be a rebuttal to statements that off-campus behavior doesn't reflect on a school; there are now allegations stating that it did. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Plus there's the Refinery29 article "I Went To Baraboo High School & I'm Not Surprised By The Nazi Salute Photo." WhisperToMe (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Both additions push the section back into WP:UNDUE territory. The Refinery source is primary (struck per WP:PSTS). The Independent's anonymous source inclusion makes me wince. If we're going to add everyone's opinion, where's the photographer's? [1][2] Pegnawl (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I wish I could include everything - the photographer's statements and the statement from the student who didn't make the gesture, etc. (and I could if I had more non-salute content) - It seems like someone deleted the Refinery29 thing but left the Independent one in - In any case I found a discussion of the numbers of harrassment complaints https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/11/20/before-nazi-salute-picture-baraboo-schools-racial-complaints-rise/2016640002/

Re: Anonymous claims, I am aware that in the field of espionage people who make statements to newspapers about that kind of stuff are anonymous. There is a reason why people make anonymous claims :(

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A stand-alone article

I think we're at or near the point where a stand-alone article on this incident is warranted. We're already omitting important facts due to WP:WEIGHT, such as the conflicting accounts given by the photographer and the non-saluting student. I won't be doing it unless there's another significant development in the story but won't object if someone else does. (The creation of a stand-alone article does not mean the NAZI salute section in this article will be removed or reduced. I believe the article's current coverage is appropriate.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that I saw the latest headline, that might be a good idea! WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I had another look this morning and there's actually quite a lot we're leaving out of this article due to space concerns, so I've started Baraboo NAZI salute photo. Feel free to make changes up to and including changing the title or nominating for deletion if you think it's warranted. Someone has tagged it for neutrality but hasn't explained their concerns on the talk page yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)