User talk:76.215.5.60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Edits to Loyola Academy

We really should have a discussion at the article talk page before including anything about the racism allegations. Your most recent additions were very subjective, and you got some of the facts wrong. Read the Sun-Times article you linked to. It says that the girl's family "dropped their complaint 'in light of the consequences doled out at the high school.'" [1]. Your version of the story suggests that the boy was expelled after the girl's family dropped the complaint. Zagalejo^^^ 18:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the rush? Considering the nature of the accustations, and the fact that minors are involved, I don't think it's prudent to say anything about the case until we have more facts. We should wait to see if more information comes to light. And even if we do learn more, it's hard to say at this point whether the incident will have any long-lasting significance for Loyola. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, the story has changed a lot since Fox News first discussed the controversy. The guy initially claimed he was just kicked out for drinking! (I think the video may still be on Fox 32's website.) It wasn't until the first Sun-Times article that we heard about the topless photo, and it wasn't until yesterday that anyone mentioned sexual assault. I'm sure there's all kinds of stuff we don't know at this point, so I think the safe thing is to keep our hands out of this. Zagalejo^^^ 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
My point was that even the most recent newspaper articles may contain several major omissions or errors. We only have a patchwork understanding of what's going on, and there may be other major revelations on the horizon.
It does appear that Loyola and the girls' family have a lot more they could say, but can't, for various reasons. (Look at the most recent Sun-Times article, for example.) And since there's not a lot of published material representing their side, it's impossible to give a truly balanced account of the situation at this time.
If I may express my own opinion on the matter, I do think it's bogus that Loyola kicked out the student because of his race. I mean, have you seen Loyola's promotional materials? They want to appear more diverse than they actually are! My own experience as a Loyola alum makes me skeptical of the racism allegations, and that's why I'm hesitant to have an entire section on the controversy when we still know so little.
In short, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a rumor mill. We don't have to report everything that's in the news, especially if it's a local interest story involving minors. But if you're going to write something about it anyway, at least show it to me first. Zagalejo^^^ 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I know more about the current goings-on at LA than you might think. But that's besides the point. I shouldn't have mentioned my personal opinions, because I think they overshadowed the earlier portions of my last comment. I still contend that it is impossible, at this point, to provide a truly balanced description of the events that transpired. Loyola and the girls' family have barely said anything of substance to the press. To quote the girl's attorney, "She's a victim in this situation. An extended discussion of this incident will just continue that victimization." [2]. These are not the conditions that allow for encyclopedic coverage, and unless this incident receives national attention, Wikipedia can do without mentioning it.
Since I don't seem to be getting anywhere with you, I'm going to request some outside opinions. If a get a real discussion going, I'll invite you to speak your mind. Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have started an RFC here. Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, I have decided to rewrite the section instead of deleting it. Let me know what you think. As you can probably tell, there are still glaring holes in the story (Did the rally ever take place?), which is why it seems unlikely we will be able to give this controversy adequate coverage. Zagalejo^^^ 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I did hear that there was a suspicious "fire drill" at the end of the day, and that, like, three guys walked up to the office, but that's all I know about it. Per Wikipedia policy we need to leave a {{fact}} tag up until we have a published source describing what happened.
But overall, I'm glad that you seem satisfied. Zagalejo^^^ 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I graduated in '03, though I'm in contact with people who still attend the school. I wasn't aware that they dropped CARE. Did they just do that? It's mentioned in the most recent student handbook they have up online. Zagalejo^^^ 22:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

  • You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Loyola Academy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)