Talk:Wauwatosa West High School

Assessment

I have assessed this article as Stub / Low for the WikiSchools Project. Needs much expansion with full references. Camaron1 | Chris 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving Start for excellent re-write, giving Mid importance for school shooting and film production in history. Could do with some pictures if possible. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New principal

As of July 1 of this year, Pat Luebke will be the principal of Tosa West. I suppose it shouldn't be added yet, but once it happens, it should. [1] ((sorry, didn't sign before)) Hezekiah957 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Article rewritten

This is not a recreation of the page deleted in the AfD, above. The article has been fully rewritten and expanded to meet the concerns expressed in the AFD and to establish the notability beyond argument. TerriersFan (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction to the part of the article detailing the shooting of Vice Principle Dale Brietlow was horror. Then it turned some nervous worry when I read the statement about his murderer. The murderer did not have a full name, only McDowell who was decribed as a former student. The only information about the shooting was a detailed description of the weapon he used.

Descibing an individual by their last name serves to distance us from the event. This had to be painful for the school and the city. I grew up there and attended that high school and know a bit about the school and the city. I imagine they would want distance. Unfortunately, this is not good detailed reporting.

Giving the description of the weapon has us ask how the former student got such a weapon. Most school shootings in Wisconsin involve hunting rifles or street pistols. This was one expensive sounding weapon. I agree the description of the weapon should be included as detail in the article. I think there should be some information where he may have obtained this weapon.

I assumed early in reading the article this was a student with a grudge. The article said the Vice Principle handled his disciplinary problems and this is the implied, not stated, motivation. The article later said he was held to be sane at the time of the shooting. This suggested he may have been compromised psychiatrically in some manner. One article called him "troubled", but none of this detail exists in this article.

I agree this is a general article and some limit on detail is needed. At the same time, this article so limits these details as to leave the reader with too little information and too much for the reader to infer rather than read. When we infer we have choices of ways to think about events.

Not all ways we think about events account for the details, or facts. We live too much these days in an opinion based society that treats facts as unnecessary. Unfortunately this article inadvertently encourages this trend.

I think at least the article should include the shooters full name and an explicit statement of what led him to his act. Some indication of the "troubles" he had might fill in the picture. A statement where he got that expensive weapon seems an important detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I wrote the "reaction to ... the shooting comment.

```

Shooting incident

I would appreciate if you paid closer attention to an edit before sending threats, something I know only too well from past experience you love to do. I cannot see why you reverted my edit, as in your summary, "References clearly state he was the associate principal.", you have clearly made a mistake, given that the opening to the paragraph to which you refer begins "On December 1, 1993, associate principal, Dale Breitlow,...". So I am reverting it back to its improved state. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

First, stop personalities this. I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about.

Secondly, this school has been around for over 50 years. It's entire history does not revolve around 2 deceased administrators. The details of the trial are totally irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the school. There is a long standing consensus to avoid using names of people who are not independently notable in school articles. Neither the administrator or the shooter are notable. There names only have relevance to the local community. How does someone looking in the encyclopedia for information on the school come away knowing more because two people who no one has ever heard of are named in the article?

Lastly, I changed the header of this section for the reason stated in the first paragraph. Nothing discussed on this page will ever be about me. Please try to discuss things constructively. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the word you were looking for was "personalising", although it is you who seems to be the one who always makes these things personal, as you seem incapable of admitting when you make a mistake.

Secondly, the idea is to use the talk page before reverting, but you already know this, maybe why you still flout this guideline, in the hope that inexperienced contributors will continue to revert and get banned.

Thirdly, you appear to be asserting that I introduced all those details into the article, clearly something you did not even check.

Fourthly, here are some examples that show your statement about a long standing consensus to avoid using names of people who are not independently notable in school articles is not true, South Pasadena High School#History, Murray-Wright High School#Violent incidents in the 1980s, Pinellas Park_High School#School shooting, Thomas Jefferson High School (Brooklyn)#History, Cape Fear High School#Shooting incident, Lone Star College–North Harris#2013 shooting, New River Community College#Shooting incident.

Lastly, are you prepared to admit you made a mistake? 82.30.110.20 (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no guideline titled WP:BDR; there is one called WP:BRD. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive arguement. The only one assuming anything is directed at them is you. When you, against policy, title a discussion on an article talk page with my username, there is no need to assume anything. If you would care to address the points on the table, I'll be happy to discuss them. You will be waiting a long time if you expect an apology. Mistakes happen. By the way, the consensus of not using names of nn people in school articles is included in the school article guidelines. I don't know or care if that is included in the guidelines for institutions of higher education. This is a secondary school and it is this article we are discussing. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I also find it odd that you choose to make such sweeping changes now, over so many edits, wiping away the evidence of your initial mistake, which I predicted you would be unable to admit. Especially given that you have had ample opportunity, and since your last edit was as recent as 15 March 2016, when you Reverted 1 edit by 2605:A000:B10C:8C00:A1F9:423E:6165:2D89. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The line in bold *Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.* in WP:BRD seems to have escaped your notice. Not that you would have been able to comprehend such behaviour. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You also seem to be confusing "admitting your mistake" with "issuing an apology". Although I highly doubt you capable of either. What you do seem to excel at is sarcasm and condescension. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Having said all that, you did send a warning to my talk page based on that mistake, therefore an apology would be appropriate. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

When you are ready to discuss Wikipedia, let me know. I hear enough bullshit from ex wife about how awful I am. I sure don't need to hear it from someone hiding in anonymity. Tata. John from Idegon (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)