Talk:Freeman High School (Washington)

Shooting

A header is a factual entity that does not grant weight to a topic. If it was in fact a shooting, then we should call it a shooting. Oak Island Kid (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion got fragmented really quickly, so to save people from visiting my talk page for my more detailed response:

Moved from User talk:Oak Island Kid § March 2018

Please follow WP:BRD. Obviously, contested changes must default to out pending consensus. WP:AGF requires you to assume that I acted in good faith in removing your unneeded subheading, as I cited policies for doing it. You are disrupting the encyclopedia by continuing to re-add it without consensus. Imagine if I added some ridiculous content to the article in question stating the shooter did a public service and I had a ridiculous source to back that up. Doing it your way, that would stay in the article until the obvious consensus that it didn't belong was reached. Please get over yourself, and go to the talk page and make logical source and policy backed arguments for having a subheading. John from Idegon (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Citing random policies that have nothing to do with the edit does not give justification for assuming good faith. The fact of the matter is a header is a delimiter and has no WP:WEIGHT, therefor it cannot add undue weight to an event. A change to an article about an event from 7 years ago that does not add anything other than add a "a long-term, historical" header does not lend itself to WP:RECENTISM. Quite simply, that paragraph is about a shooting and we should certainly call it a shooting per WP:DUCK. Oak Island Kid (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:John from Idegon § March 2018

See the message on your talk page. I'll start a discussion at the article's talk, but try to understand that you are the one violating the community standards of behavior here. Obviously disputed changes require consensus. How else could it work? It's irrelevant whether you agree with my reasons or not. If someone disputes new content, the editor wanting the content is required to justify it and gain consensus prior to the change occurring. I gave you a very clear example of why that is on your talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I already started a discussion on the article's talk and you have ignored it or refused to comment on it. Also, per the talkback below, follow-up on my user talk page. This is getting fragmented and I'll no longer be following the discussion here. Oak Island Kid (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Putting information in a subsection calls undue emphasis to it. This violates WP:RECENT. The school was founded, existed 50 some odd years and nothing happened, then in the space of just a few minutes a few years ago, a person did something very unfortunate in the school and that is important enough to be separated out from the rest of the history? No. I made a point in the prior sentence that it was a person that did this. There is no indication that the school itself had any role in this event other than being the venue for it. There is an argument to be made that we already have too much in the article about it. Seriously, nothing whatsoever happened between 1955 and the day the shooting occurred? I was born in 55 and a whole lot happened in my life in that span. I'm sure the same is true for this school. John from Idegon (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This conversation got fragmented because YOU failed to follow WP:BRD, leaving me to have to explain to you why you need to. If you would have simply started a conversation here the first time I reverted you, there would be no problem whatsoever. I'm typing on a phone, so sorry if I can't keep up with your pace. I'm also seeing clients and making calls. Just calm down. John from Idegon (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I did start a discussion here after the first revision before I then reverted it back to the neutral state. Oak Island Kid (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Citing an essay on sockpuppetry is not bolstering your case. MOS:BODY is very clear that small sections (and by extension subsections) are to be avoided. There is no need to separate one single event out of the history section, which is a needed section per the article style guide, as the history section is already quite small. It only serves to call attention to the content of the subsection, which is a violation of WP:RECENT. John from Idegon (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)