Talk:Steubenville, Ohio

message: # Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
# Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
# Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, .
• Sbmeirow • Talk •  13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Tips Before Editing This Article 

message: Half of Big Red are rapists...
89.242.178.78 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: No constructive edit request made. If any user in good standing sees fit to remove the above comment as vandalism you have my permission to delete this comment as well. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No constructive request was made by him. Here is one from me: There is one very notable event in Steubenville, well covered by national media which should be mentioned in the article. Warbola (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of your comment the incident was already mentioned in the article. Kuyabribri quite properly moved it out of the lead and into the body in accordance with WP:LEAD. --Rawlangs (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 January 2013 

message: I am somewhat surprised that an article on the case has yet to appear on WP. I am assuming this is because of questions over Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Current Events Editing, as well as Undue and other reasons. However, as has been stated above, more people are going to come to this page because of it and it seems to me that it is time for the case to have an article by itself. The case has been covered by the New York Times, CNN, Good morning America, the Guardian, Daily Mail. I think we have enough RS and the fact that it has been reported so widely establishes notability, does it not? I suspect that there are other reasons editors here have been reluctant to make a page, and feel here would be the appropriate place to discuss the matter.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're pretty well on the button there. The relevant policy can be found in WP:EVENT. You can see my interpretation of those guidelines in the discussion above. If the event satisfies WP:EVENT, it merits inclusion in wikipedia. Cheers. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly deserves an article, I've actually got a summary of the events written up, but haven't gotten around to writing an actual article. Ryan Vesey 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means. Let's be bold and get this going. Post here when it's up and I'll do a copyedit. --Rawlangs (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article, but it was very POV and got deleted.  Personally, I don't think there should be an article.  News events are only supposed to have articles if it is obvious they will have some sort of long term effect, like changes in  laws or policies, or a continuing wide-spread impact on the collective psyche. The only thing that is unusual about this event is the involvement of Anonymous.  Sad as it is, multiple teenage girls get raped every day.  Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EVENT allows for creation of a page even before long term impact has been determined. All we have right now is the extent of coverage, which is pretty wide. I don't think we have enough info to delete an entire article providing it complies to WP:CRIME and WP:NPOV. But that's just one person's opinion. --Rawlangs (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one else is doing it, I decided to BE BOLD, grab the bull by the horns, and just do it.  I'm designating the Steubenville High School article the primary article to hold the text about this event (or until someone creates a new article for the event).  The text in the Steubenville, Ohio article should be VERY short, similar to this Newtown, Connecticut#2012 school shooting section.  Please thin down text in this article ASAP.  • Sbmeirow • Talk •  15:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, nonsense. See discussion on your new article.  --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape case independent article 

message: 'alleged' is misspelled as 'allegded' in the article. I can not seem to edit this, so someone with privileges could you please do this?
: Done Looks like PRRFan got that done for you. You can't edit the page without a confirmed or auto-confirmed account because it has been semi-protected. Thanks for the report. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 13 January 2013 

message: There is not an "alleged rape" case.  There is a rape case.  Boys are alleged to have committed rape. Not "alleged rape." The purpose of the case and the trial is to determine whether a *rape* occurred.  Not an alleged rape.  If convicted, the boys will be convicted of rape not alleged rape.  If it cuts down on the edit wars to append that word to every mention of rape, fine, but let's have enough respect for our language to admit we're using it badly here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.90 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  over use of "alleged" 

message: Hi all, 
Wanted to let you know that Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark has been nominated for deletion.  If any editor has constructive history, data, events, or other material to add to the article I'd appreciate it!  Thanks again.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this has been moved from Delete to undelete to now AfD so yes this is again being nominated for deletion, please join the conversation link on the article's notice if you wish to express yourself, thanks. Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way 10:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark

message: * Suggestion the argument that this won't be notable in the future is reading the WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is a notable event for this town now and future editors can determine if notability did not survive the history books (not likely given the likely survivability of the internet). Rape is not the story, the behavior of town and school officials is, and that is a notable event about this town. However, we should reference WP:weight as to where to place this information in the town's article and how much to say about it. I think the length of the entry is about right, but there are two other issues. First, the entry is almost entirely about the rape and the hackers with only a single mention of the alleged cover up. The alleged cover up is why it become notable and why it should be mentioned in this page. That needs to be expanded on. Second the placement isn't really supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. "Local issues" isn't a great section header and these three scandals aren't really section materiel. It should be a subsection under History or Politics. Since editors above seem to focus their problem with this falling under history, let's make it a subsection under Politics and change the name to something like Notable Scandals, or Political Scandals, or notable political issues. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support that whole heartedly.  Thanks, . John from Idegon (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Let's make it Politics#Scandals; no need for another adjective. PRRfan (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with . To not qualify the title is to invite inclusion of "the alderman slept with the dentist's wife" type garbage. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of plunging into the picayune, let me inquire: what adjective do you want? Surely not the redundant "Politics#Political scandals"? And "Politics#Notable scandals" is needless. The article's other subheads don't say "Culture#Notable historic sites" or "Politics#Notable political corruption" or "Demographics#Notable public health issues". 05:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "Political" in the subsection is a no-no. We're not supposed to referenced above titles in subtitles. That was my bad to suggest it. However, "Notable" is often used to insulate lists that might attract attempts at non-notable entries (e.g. Notable People). I vote Notable Scandals. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, concur. 16:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

text: So far we have two minors convicted of raping a minor woman. End of story, and perhaps reflected in a thousand other towns/cities annually in the U.S. There is nothing more to the story at all. There are no formal "coverup" accusations, and therefore no convictions. Pretty ordinary. I'm glad this is just restricted to Steubenville. I'd hate to see this gain traction in the rest of place articles. It would be nothing but a police blotter. (Think "New York City"!) Student7 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow, I missed the national and international discussion spurred by the rapes in those other thousand towns. PRRfan (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have resigned myself that this article is going to talk about this, as unimportant to the bigger picture of the town as it is.  BTW, notability is only important in determining what gets an article, not what is in it.  And i do not see the extended, lengthy discussion of this event that you are portraying.  It got its 15 second bite on the news a few times.  It got some write ups in papers.  Case in point for relative weight.  For many people worldwide, the first thing they think of when they hear "Chicago" is the gangster wars of the 1930's.  There is no arguing that was a notable event in the history of the city.  It gets exactly one sentence in a paragraph on two decades in an article 10 times the size of this one.  Why?  Even tho there is likely more written on the thirties gangland wars than any other subject pertaining to Chicago, its relative importance to the understanding of the city is not very large.  Same with this.  Be honest with yourself.  I will bet that Steubenville is pretty much the same place it was two years ago, before this ever happened.  If it isn't, I would bet that there are much better reasons than the news covered a particularly tawdry story that originated there.  I still say the best contents this article could have regarding this event is a link in a "See also" section, but I could live with a much briefer (one sentence tops) inclusion in another section. John from Idegon (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure why you think anyone is not being honest with themselves here. But just as a reality check, I trotted over to Google to see whether the New York Times, whose attention has long been a proxy for WP notability, was still writing about Steubenville. Yep, as recently as a week ago. So I searched just for "Steubenville", and found this piece at Huffington Post — to be sure, a far less weighty measure of notability, and yet still evidence that the discussion goes on. Anyway, I'm satisfied with a brief mention of the rape in the article. PRRfan (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Looks like we're talking past each other here. Having secured a good compromise, I will gracefully withdraw from the discussion. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Apologies if I am misinterpreting your points. In any case, good luck. Dave Dial (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break 

message: I think this is completely reasonable as it is a major reason steubenville has been in the news in the past and it still of interest today.  It's why I visited the page.  It didn't make sense to hide it away, unlinked from the town its related to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrruwe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is not a recent case. --89.0.244.51 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is, and you still are editing against concensus.  When there is agreement here to add it then it can be added. Not before. John from Idegon (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding link to Steubenville Rape Case as a see also link