Talk:Justice High School

Contradictory

There are obvious reasons to portray the naming of this school as politically motivated or not, but that debate should not play itself out in the article itself, at least not the way it is now. We can say, "Reliable Source 1 says it's an act of racial defiance, but Reliable Source 2 says it's not." But we shouldn't have nonsense like, "Reliable Source 1 says it's an act of racial defiance. But go look at this. There is no defiance." --BDD (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

BDD, not sure how this Wiki contact works but I am interested in what your thoughts are on this as I understand your point. NovatruthNovatruth (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed "there was no defiance" does that work? I'm not an Wiki expert here, just trying as I believe there should be integrity to the information presented on the page Nova TruthNovatruth (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

content discussion 12/30/2017 History section

Hi, I'm John from Idegon, and I am one of the coordinators of WikiProject Schools, the group of people that looks after the quality and consistency of articles pertaining to high schools. My particular efforts are concentrated on US high schools.

There are some serious problems with this article, primarily the WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE/WP:TOPIC/WP:NOT in the history section. The vast majority of the content revolving around its original naming isn't even on topic. If it was truly controversial, and frankly what is in the article seems more like a post facto attempt to make it appear so, that controversy pertains to the school district, not this school. It didn't even exist yet, for pete's sake, and the school itself is not part of whatever controversy existed about its name. The subsection on Stuart's ties to the area should be completely eliminated. Again, this article is about a high school, not the Civil War. The section on the naming controversy part 1 should be pared down to one or two sentences, and possibly expanded coverage could be moved to the district's article. (That would be a subject to discuss at that article's talk page) Clearly, discussion of the naming of other schools at that same time have nothing whatsoever to do with this school, and as I stated above, even the naming of this school is more about the district than the school. All the subheaders can be eliminated, because once all the off topic stuff is gone, they simply are not needed. As the renaming process unfolds, our coverage should be sparse. As of now, just that it is happening. The details are news, and Wikipedia is not, by one of its pillar policies, a newspaper. When a final decision is reached to rename the school and a timeline set, we should report that. When the name change actually occurs, this article should be pagemoved to the new name.

Remember, this talk page is for discussing changes needing to be made to this page. It is not for discussing any underlying political issues. Please base any and all your arguments on reliable published secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arguments to avoid include unsourced statements about how important this is to the school, or the community, or the nation; and statements about what may or may not be in other articles. If we discuss this rationally, leaving our emotions in the other room, we should be able to get this straightened out fairly quickly (like by the end of January give or take). To start things off, I have removed the section on the civil war. This is relatively new copy and I cannot see what it has to do with a high school in any way. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I consolidated the original history of the name significantly. It could use some history from the earlier times, but it shouldn’t all be about the name. When I have more time, I’ll try to find some. Smartyllama (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think that any discussion about the name change belongs here, not at the District article, because the controversy has to do with this specific school and not all schools with Confederate names, like Robert E. Lee High School. If there are developments there later, we can revisit, but for now the Board has explicitly said they’re not changing Lee’s name unless people there want it. Smartyllama (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Smartyllama, are we in agreement that discussion of the name of Lee High School is not in any way about this high school and has no place here? And just to be clear, I was talking about the issues from 1958 about names, prior to this school's existence, not the current issues. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we are. I don't think there's the same controversy right now about the Lee name that there is about the Stuart name, so it shouldn't really be mentioned anywhere, except one or two lines in the Lee article about how it got its name, and perhaps a line or two in the FCPS article explaining naming guidelines for schools. If and when there is controversy over that name, we can revisit. Smartyllama (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits that deleted large swaths of the article

Hey, I'm going to revert the edits that were recently made deleting nearly all of the article minus the most basic information possible. I get wanting to follow WP:NOTNEWS, but there is definitely some information in what was deleted that can certainly be viewed as encyclopedic information. For example, having been a student at then-Stuart HS, now Justice HS, I know that the struggles with testing and the math program during my time were not only newsworthy, they directly affected conversation and policy concerning test scores and whether the principal at the time and in principals in previous years were doing their job. I also would imagine that if and when criticisms from former teachers become public about the current principal, after circulating for a year or two and being researched by others would also become encyclopedic in nature. In broader context, this article should document in some way, shape, or form the renaming process considering it has some much larger and national implications -- having followed this article's haggling in the past year over it, I think it's safe to say we can do better about the language, but just throwing it all out is overly deletionist -- especially when we know that some version of that language is going to have to be in this article at some point. Rejewskifan (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've again removed the vast majority of it. Using all these names of non notable people is an issue. Any controversy regarding this schools leadership is irrelevant to the understanding of this school. Clearly, choices of school leaders is a function of the district. All the yaya about the math program is a local topic and we don't cover local topics in Wikipedia's school articles. And frankly, Rejewskifan, if you cannot separate what you "know" as a former student from editing an article about your former school, you should either go forward following best practices as a COI editor, or recuse yourself. If you have some copy to propose here that does not rely on local sources only and that can be made without discussing individual achievement or names of non notable people, feel free to propose it here. John from Idegon (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In terms of COI, maybe you're right. I'll do some more pondering on that before I make another edit on this page. That being said, the Jay Matthews article in my opinion shouldn't be considered a local source. Sure, it's the Washington Post, but his column is nationally syndicated IIRC, and he's a well respected researcher and published author in the field of Pedagogy. I wouldn't be so sure to view his comments on policy decisions concerning the math department at Jeb Stuart as not deserving a mention.

In addition, and I think I'm on much less shaky ground here, the name change controversy was picked up nationally by the Washington Post, American School & University here, the Associated Press here, by Reuters here, amongst other sources. I think given that since this was also happening in proximity with the Charleston church shooting, this certainly is a notable topic to discuss in an article about the school. The dust has mostly settled on this controversy, and I think it's past time that this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and has, with extensive (and obviously local) reporting, become a WP:NOTE issue that is most appropriately discussed here. The Washington Post is reliable, the Falls Church News Press is reliable, and Reuters and AP do not in any way have a vested personal interest in this. While you're most assuredly right that individuals that aren't notable should not be named as liberally as they were, that doesn't merit the canning of a whole section that has been achieved through a long and painful process of WP:CONSENSUS -- it just means that it needs to be refined more.

Like I said, I'll refrain from further edits for now due to the WP:COI concern you brought up. I do hope you'll reconsider your line of thinking as well, and perhaps include some, if not all of the language that you seem to have a problem with, since I still would maintain that at least the latter name change issue deserves more mention than is described in the current version of the article. Rejewskifan (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll also provide some copy later in the week in this talk page on at least the name change issue when I am not so bogged down with school work. Rejewskifan (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rejewskifan here. The history of the school is relevant, especially the name change, which received national coverage. The Washington Post is not a local source, it's a major national paper. Not to mention all the other sources. I'm restoring the info. I don't have a COI issue. 13:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Justice High School with unanimous support (including previous opposition).(non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

---

J. E. B. Stuart High School → Justice High School – Name change will go into effect July 1 per sources in article. Seems pretty straightforward, but needs admin attention because that page has a history beyond just being a redirect, about the name change before it was redirected here. Smartyllama (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support move, effective 1 July. As you said, it's pretty straightforward. ONR (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The school website https://justicehs.fcps.edu/ has already been rebranded and moved to the new domain. The mascot and logo have also been changed. Meters (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Move to suggested title. As I believe I was the main opposition to this earlier, I'll try to find an administrator to do the technical move so we can get to work on the needed updates. John from Idegon (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.