Talk:Justice High School

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradictory 

message: Hi, I'm , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  content discussion 12/30/2017 History section