Talk:The Oakridge School

	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.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (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.

It is requested that an image or photograph of The Oakridge School be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Administrator tweet

I have rewritten and renamed the "controversy" section. Nothing in that section constituted a controversy. I have also removed the claim that the tweet was sent publicly (if I understand the situation correctly, it was the lawyer who published it) as well as the specific wording which seems irrelevant to the school. Huon (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I waded into an edit war here, sorry for perpetuating without checking the history. I'm of the opinion (obviously) that we should not include this information, as it's defamatory information about an individual who is otherwise entirely non-notable. I cited WP:COATRACK in my edit summary and I think this could be a textbook example we could include in the essay, and it's also textbook WP:BLP1E - man does something stupid, gets published in a local paper = not encyclopedic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the BLP1E aspect (and have renamed this section accordingly). That the school suspends one of its administrators over a non-public tweet he sent from his personal account seems relevant enough with respect to its personnel policies. Of course better sources wouldn't hurt. On the other hand, the vast majority of sources we do use in the article are even worse than a local paper. Maybe a one-line mention in the history section would be appropriate, along the lines of "In 2018 The Oakridge School suspended its Head of Upper School for sending a profanity-laden direct message from his private Twitter account"? That seems to be the gist of the newspaper article. Huon (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By now the incident has made national news. I've added a one-line summary to the history section. Huon (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit is fine. Mentions the incident but avoids mentioning the 1E-notable person by name. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]