Talk:Pickerington High School North

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Orphaned references in Pickerington High School North

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pickerington High School North's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ohio High School Athletic Association":

From Worthington Kilbourne High School: OHSAA. "Ohio High School Athletic Association Web site". Retrieved 2006-12-31.
From Dublin Coffman High School: OHSAA. "Ohio High School Athletic Association Web site". Retrieved 2006-12-31.
From Hilliard Darby High School (Hilliard, Ohio): OHSAA. "Ohio High School Athletic Association Home Page". Retrieved 2007-10-29.
From Ohio High School Athletic Association: OHSAA. "Ohio High School Athletic Association Web site". Retrieved 2009-01-23.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section

Regarding edit posted on 07:32, 3 November 2021‎ by User:TheAfroDuckMann reverted changes I made as 208.102.167.199 on 00:38, 25 April 2021. I sincerely apologize for not having been logged in at the time the contributions were made, this was an oversight on my part. On 00:37, 14 June 2021 User:Siggysfriend removed the section with the comment "old news", which was reverted by user User:Rdp060707 due to "unexplained content removal". Information was deleted again by User:2603:6011:b623:1c97:b1d6:1b8e:2b:8c20 (01:42, 6 July 2021‎), only to be reverted by user User:Longhair, and then deleted again by "2603:6011:b623:1c97:b1d6:1b8e:2b:8c20" (02:08, 6 July 2021), then reverted once more by User:TypicalWikimedian~public, deleted a third time by "2603:6011:b623:1c97:b1d6:1b8e:2b:8c20" (02:10, 6 July 2021‎), reverted again by Longhair, deleted for a fourth time by "2603:6011:b623:1c97:b1d6:1b8e:2b:8c20", and then reverted again by Etineskid. It remained from that time (02:14, 6 July 2021) until 3 November 2021, as previously mentioned. TheAfroDuckMann's reason for removal of the section was "restored the page mostly, clearly has been vandalized. Controversy section reads like a news article and has no place here". However, I would respectfully disagree that this merits deletion, and should instead be revised for tone if that is the case at issue. Per Wikipedia's policy, "[y]our new articles or facts can survive severe dispute, if you have valid sources". Since the validity of the sources is not under dispute, I would once again argue that revision by a second Wikipedian is more in line with Wikipedia policy than outright deletion. Given the back-and-forth addition and deletion of the section since I first added it, I would like to open a civil discussion from the users cited above in regard to this matter, rather than re-adding the section, as to avoid continued edit warring. Thank you for your time. Superraptor123 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: Controversy Section

hi, i'm a student at this school and i think i speak for everyone when i say this is NOT how we want our school to be remembered. not only is this section of the article damaging to the reputation of our school, but it also is totally unnecessary considering how little importance these situations even had to the history of our school. no one remembers these events, and i don't think anyone cares about them either. these situations do not define our school, and a wikipedia page should include information that defines a thing.

the second and third paragraphs of the section also have nothing to do with north but pickerington local school district as a whole. i would be fine seeing these relocated to that page as they are a part of the school districts history, but the 2020 situation has nothing to do with north itself and is only here because there's a section about racist incidents on this page. i'd prefer those paragraphs be relocated to the page about the district.

especially with racism becoming a prevalent issue in our society in america in the 21st century, this section of small, irrelevant events do nothing but create anger and frustration in people against our school, which is an amazing place filled with genuinely good people.

racism should not define this school. i request that the controversy sectiom be removed from the article and the portion about the 2020 incident be moved to the PLSD article.

thank you. 104.230.217.41 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing this content. I believe it was first added in April 2020 [1] by an IP with no other Wikipedia history. Since then it has repeatedly been removed and restored, often by users with no other Wikipedia history.

Sorry, but "this is NOT how we want our school to be remembered" is not a valid reason to remove content." I don't like controversy sections myself, but this one seems to have some validity. Note that while incidents are mentioned, we also cover how the school and district responded appropriately. I disagree with your belief that the 2nd paragraph (the district's statement) does not belong in this article. It can be seen, at least in part, as a direct response to what was happening at the school. Having said that, I completely agree with your point that the 3rd paragraph has nothing to do with this article. I will remove it. As far as I can see we don't have an article on the district to move that content to. Meters (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removed [2]. I also removed the strange "news release" tag. Meters (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the above section that user: Superraptor123 was the IP who initially added this content as an IP. Meters (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Meters. Changes to the content in terms of scope make sense. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should present information. In my opinion, incidents of racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia are information to be reported, and they should be reported. These issues are not new. They occurred, and if simply mentioning them on a Wikipedia page causes frustration, maybe the school should look inwardly upon that. Personally, I would like to know the unsavory parts of any school that I would be putting my children into, and looking into Wikipedia is one way to find that information. To quote from Sara Ahmed: "When those who try to stop a culture from being reproduced are stopped, a culture is being reproduced". That being said, User talk:104.230.217.41, please feel free to add other parts to this article, it is lacking in that regard and could use more people adding content, rather than removing it. I would ask Meters, regarding the third paragraph; there is currently no Pickerington Local School District page; would that information be better suited for the "Pickerington, Ohio / Education" section or elsewhere? Thanks! Superraptor123 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not be included in the Pickering, Ohio article, any more than we should include staff discipline by any other company in the town.

And I have removed Superraptor123's latest attempt to mention this, with the vague [3]. Please discuss this. Why should we include mention of a temporary admin leave without any details of what is going on? Meters (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I have added a bit of my thoughts below, but in general I agree with your removal until further details are mentioned. Thanks for catching this oversight, I appreciate it. Superraptor123 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information related to PHSN Principal Mark Ulbrich's Removal

Recently, both the principals from the two Pickerington High Schools were removed from their positions at the same time. It was confirmed that the reason the the Pickerington High School Central principal was temporally removed was due to a "culturally-insensitive comment". However, nothing has been confirmed about the principal at Pickerington High School North, who is still under investigation. In my opinion, it is notable that they were both under investigation at the same time, but it may be better to refrain from including it until the details of the investigation become known. It is definitely causing a bit of a stir in the community itself it seems as well. My only thought is that it may put more pressure on the district to release information if it's in the information cycle, but that's admittedly a bit of a reach. Superraptor123 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing but your inference that "it is notable that they were both under investigation at the same time." We do not know why the principal of Pickerington High School North was reassigned. The sources explicitly state that the "reason for the actions was not disclosed" and that "the incidents are unrelated." It is irrelevant to this article why the other principal was suspended. Do not discuss it here. Meters (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]