:Talk:Solebury School

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Schools|importance=low|needs-infobox=no}}

}}

Multiple Problems

This article demonstrates heavy biased towards Solebury School, and reads like an advertisement for the institution. It bares two scant references of tangential relevance to the article, and the bulk of claims made are unsubstantiated and written in a promotional manner inappropriate for Wikipedia. Memtgs (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision

I have made some substantial edits to the article to make it appear less like an advertisement and more an encyclopedic source of information. A summary of the changes:

  • Puffery and embellished terms have been removed. Phrases such as "this was the dream shared by Solebury's four young founders" and "teachers are encouraged to bring their passions for a subject to the students" add little to the article, safe for some romantic idealism. Others, such as "with advanced courses as well as unique electives in every subject," are highly subjective.
  • I have removed several paraphrasings of Solebury's mission statement which I felt contributed very little, such as: "Solebury School believes in students using all parts of their being - where arts and athletics are regarded as equally important and each has a place in the day," "to provide a challenging college preparatory curriculum that encourages students to explore and develop their individual skills and talents in an informal educational community," "to create an environment of educational excellence that prepares students for college and beyond. In the Solebury community, we strongly value intellectual challenge and academic achievement, creative and independent thinking, mutual respect between students and teachers, deep respect for each individual, and diversity," and so on. These are not informative bits, and can easily be found elsewhere, such as on the school's own website or promotional material.
  • I have removed lists of classes taught, including AP and honors classes, per the WP:WPSCH/AG#OS. Such information is available on the school's website, and requires constant updating.
  • I have cleaned up formatting and merged some sections relevant to one another (such as Academics and ESL Program, Activities and Sports). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memtgs (talkcontribs) 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse Section

I am uncertain of the academic relevance of Solebury's recent release of information pertaining to its history of sexual offenses committed by faculty. Nonetheless, it has garnered some attention in the local media, so it is of some encyclopedic importance. But what is the use of adding the name and details of those involved? It strikes me as controversial trivia that the article does not really benefit from. It also threatens the identity and victimization of those involved, per Wikipedia:AVOIDVICTIM. Thoughts? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 00:07, 2-09-2014 UTC 00:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

::The ongoing problem with sex abuse at this school is long-standing and of great importance. I see no problem publishing the name of a person convicted of a crime. THe sources already determined publishing his name would not threaten the victim. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:::"Long-standing and of great importance" -- you say that like it's a school mantra, or that other schools on Wikipedia are held to the same level of accountability. Why do you feel so strongly the article should be presented this way? It is a blemish on Solebury history and remains highly dividing in the community. Do other school articles go this route with their legal and social controversies? I'm not arguing for censorship -- surely these heinous incident deserve some representation on the page. But right now, editors have reverted numerous attempts to remove the data without any discussion regarding sensitivity, myself included. When will this become a footnote on Solebury history, rather than the bulk of its history section? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 01:24, 20-03-2016 UTC 01:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

::::We are currently in the process of revising the article in light of recent editorial abuse claims related to the sexual abuse case. Jellocube27 (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)