Talk:Woodrow Wilson High School (Los Angeles)

message: How is it relevent to the article where alumni attend?  Wouldn't it be more relevent who the notable alumni of this school are? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Admissions

message: The listing of an NFL football player was incomplete and thus partially incorrect; moreover there was a 2nd NFL football player who was overlooked so listings for both were fully noted with links to other wiki pages.  The notoriety of these men is verified by the fact that they have their own wikipedia pages.  As for others, in June 2017 someone deleted the model Claire Sinclair whose actual name is Clarissa Riccio.  That was wrong. Sinclair/Riccio is referenced in other wikipedia pages (link provided) and has her own IMDB page. By definition, Claire Sinclair is a person of notoriety.  One's opinion of her being a Playboy model is irrelevant -- some may actually like this very much while others may find it distasteful.  Regardless, she has a legitimate and documented national (and internet) presence.  Do not delete Claire Sinclair / Clarissa Ricco. Btw, since 2006 the name of former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was put on this list, then deleted, then put back on, then deleted, and so on. He actually was a graduate of Roosevelt HS, not Wilson HS.  Do not include Antonio Villaraigosa on this list.Lapabc (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ernesto Chavez, Professor of History at University of Texas and WWHS alumnus is acquainted with playwright Luis Alfaro and communicated that Alvarez graduated from WWHS (1980) despite most biographies stating Alvarez grew up in the Pico Union; based on that verification, Alvarez was added. Olympian and US Gymnastics Hall of Fame inductee Armando Vega was also added, along with citation.Lapabc (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable alumni 

message: Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". As this edit fails to meet that burden, it should not be re-added until a reliable source is provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) That is not a justification, it is cut and paste of a verifiability policy page.  And it seems not directly relevant; there is no problem with verifiability, your problem seems to be with "reliable source."  In any case, your statement that it fails is an opinion. I disagree with that opinion.  I personally vetted the information on that source page and selected it over more traditional sources like the Los Angles Times whose particular mention of this issue was not totally relevant to the information expressed in the wikipedia page text at isssue.  (2) You not only deleted a citation, but you deleted an entire passage of the wikipedia article.  There is no justification for that. (3) Given that you appear to be an experienced editor, you should know that you must gain consensus in a dispute and not act unilaterally.  Until you do so and/or provide convincing justification you should leave that section alone.Lapabc (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikis (including Wikipedia, BTW) are wp:SELFPUBLISHED sources and as such, are not considered wp:reliable sources (RS) There is little to no editorial oversight and little to no repercussion for inaccurate information. The information needs to cite RS or should be removed. Nikkimaria is correct here. You should find an RS for this info. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Verifiability is demonstrated by adding a reliable source, which that is not. That policy also allows for the removal of content not supported by reliable sources, and states that it should not be restored without the addition of a reliable source. You should also review WP:CANVASS. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jim1138.  I propose to resolve this in the following way.  First the information about the school being used in the TV series is going to be restored. There is utility in stating this information in the wikipedia article because the Walking Dead TV association has affected internet searches of the real Wilson High School. In some internet searches images of the fictional "Paul Williams" high school (with temporary fictitious name affixed to the building) outrank the actual Wilson High School. Having a source that explains the confusion is very useful. Further, this may be a minor point but association of a Los Angeles High School with a TV series or movie may not be especially notable for certain West LA schools or a certain Beverly Hills HS, but it is unusual for an East LA school and is therefore notable in that community.  Second the real issue is with the reliability of the source.  As stated in my comment above there are traditional sources thus I will use the one from the Los Angeles times: LA Times article.  It's not a citation that meets my criteria for an especially good citation for two reasons: the LA Time article is (1) too short and (2) it's behind a partial paywall. But there should be no dispute that the LA Times is reliable and that specific LA Times item is relevant thus it should satisfy Nikkimaria's original objection. (There is an additional reference in LA Magazine as well, but of low quality.) But that brings us back to the Wiki reference at issue. I recognize the weakness of that Wiki as a source. However that specific page is accurate. Moreover it is content-rich and it provides a broader context for the statement in this Wilson HS wikipedia article and for the confusing images of Wilson/Williams circulating on the internet. That Wiki source has utility. My aim is always for an informative and accurate wikipedia article, not a narrowly pedantic adherence to policy.  Thus I believe the restored passage should be referenced by BOTH the unassailable LA Times source together with the problematic Wiki source. If the Wiki source cannot stand on its own, that doesn't mean it can't be a secondary, subsidiary source.  I will wait to see how others weigh in on this.Lapabc (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nikkimaria, I already know about those policies and don't need to review them.  I simply disagreed with how you interpret/apply them.Lapabc (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection is to use of an unreliable source, and that objection stands. If the content is supported by a reliable source which meets the requirements set out in this RfC, great, let's keep the content - but not that link, which is neither reliable nor consistent with WP:EL. And if you've read WP:CANVASS, suggest re-reviewing in light of your user talk postings. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nikkimaria Okay, so I switched the citation to the LA Times article only.  I know you police this issue and must find it more expedient to click an undo button than to explain every action, but I hope you recognize sometimes it's helpful to take the time and engage instead of just keep clicking away. If it's okay with you, we can consider this closed.Lapabc (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BURDEN]]