Talk:Huntington High School (New York)

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

100 years[edit]

If you look further you will see the Huntington School district dates back 350 years started in 1657.

Yeah, but the buildingb doesn't.Tailsfan2 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over removal of "Controversy" section[edit]

I would like to establish consensus to stop the edit-warring over whether to include the "Controversy" section. I believe nobody has broken the three-revert rule yet, so I hope we can settle this before that happens.

Pings: @Huntingtonisracist; @Bdl11387; @Oinoinoiandsoin; @Super Cyclonic Storm Corona; @174.244.128.157; @Biglittlehugesmall65; @173.3.130.201; @Iflaq; @Skingo12; @174.244.128.157.

Question: Should § Controversy be included in the article? — Twassman | Talk | Contribs 00:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section identifies prominent information about school documented in reputable media sources (New York Times, ProPublica). This section would be completely at home in a page about any major institution/figure. This information has been solidified in history and is fundamentally tied to the school. It should stay.

Huntingtonisracist (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @173.3.130.201 has broken the three-revert rule.

Huntingtonisracist (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this IP has reverted thrice, this does not break the 3RR, as s/he has not performed more than three reverts. — Twassman | Talk | Contribs 00:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cited contain information that is patently false and designed to mislead. Further, there has been no expulsion of nany student from the district. Citing data that suggests otherwise is both reckless and defamatory. The section should be removed. Bdl11387 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if the part about Black students needs to stay. I look at "controversy" as an event that is, well, controversial. Systemic biases that have probably been happening for years don't warrent the controversy label. That part could probably be moved to a different section. However, the events regarding Alex should stay on the page. This is an event that tied to the school and garnered media attention. There are probably ways to reword the information to give a clearer perspective, but what we have now should remain. -Big little huge small 65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only if you can provide enough references for it, keeping WP:NPOV in mind. Also the page is about a High School, The information about the school is less than the controversy. Kindly add more content about the subject first which must be the primary concern. Iflaq ^(talk) 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- I was just reverting what seemed like vandalism, but if you ask me, I would keep per comment above. This is not really my area of expertise, so, yeah. ~ 🌀 SCS CORONA 🌀 14:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]