Talk:St. Patrick Catholic High School (Biloxi, Mississippi)

United States: Mississippi Low‑importance

	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.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (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.
	Reasoning for assessment: First step is to add an infobox and some topics (remember to add refs). Pictures are always good. Good Luck -- User:Allstarecho 04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich history

If it was founded as recently a 2007, how is its history rich? Chasnor15 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved and renamed in 2007 after Hurricane Katrina destroyed the original building. --24.119.21.78 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

Anonymous editor 50.86.54.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed the "Controversy" section with this edit and a summary of "Most of this information is false and puts bad light in the school." The information that was removed is clearly cited by credible sources. Maybe they should look at the citations first before removing. I am encouraging discussion for the IP here instead of continuing to revert; that is the point of the BRD process. Eye snore 14:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epaldrich1991 and C.Fred: I'm trying to discuss here by reaching involved contributors so that the issue does not escalate into an edit war. I encourage discussion for all involved editors whether or not to keep the "Controversy" section of the article despite being cited by multiple credible sources. Eye snore 00:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the burden is plainly on Epaldrich1991 to provide a policy-based reason to remove the text. We don't remove material because it "shines a bad light" on the subject. The number of sources make it hard to believe the information is false. They'll need to give specific examples of how what's in the article doesn't agree with what's in the source, or give sources that contradict the ones we have now. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and I'm not opposed to integrating the 'Controversy' section into the 'Background' section and turning it into a 'History' (or keep it Background or something similar) section. I suggest this because I've learned it's bad practice to have a 'Controversy' section and it would maybe help the article "flow" better. Owellway (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I think the inclusion of the letter is a bit too far (probably also copyright infringing). Also, I do think {{Criticism section}} applies. This should probably be taken to the NPOV noticeboard. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 18:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]