Talk:Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona)

Re: Alleged public comments of Principal DePrez

I find this extremely ironic, considering that I am a former student of Principal DePrez's Hispanic wife and a former classmate of their biracial daughter. I feel this statement definitely needs proper citation. I would be the wrong person to perform a revert or deletion, as I consider my status as "acquaintance" to be a conflict of interest and in violation of NPOV, but I would like to bring this uncited paragraph to attention. Thanks! -- Miwa 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the IP has been a frequent source of vandalism of other articles ... unless there are any objections, I will be reverting this article, the information may be posted if proper citations are included. -- Miwa 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Strongly support as the the Fine Arts program doesn't have inherent notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits August 2017

Collapsed entire discussion due to repeated WP:NOTFORUM violations by one particular user. If anyone wishes to make a concrete proposal for some change in the article, feel free to start a new section. Any further NOTFORUM violations will be referred directly to ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed (for the second time, reverted by two different editors) the recent addition regarding an apparent hazing incident. The content is a violation of one of our most inflexible policies, WP:BLP, which pertains to what we can and cannot include when writing about living people. It also violates a pillar policy, WP:NOT. One of the things about BLP is that until there is consensus on what to include if anything, we do not add content to the article about it. Please discuss here and omit all names. Your arguments need to be based on sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arguments along the line of "It's important to the school" or "We need to let people know" carry no weight whatsoever. Thank you for your cooperation. Please know that there are tools available to ensure your cooperation if you choose to continue to replace this content without consensus. Please don't choose to go that route. John from Idegon (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC) I've re-added a much-trimmed version of the controversy section that I think covers the important facts without mentioning names. I'm still a little uncomfortable with some of the sourcing — a lot of it feels a bit local, if you know what I mean — but I'm not familiar with any of the current or likely future sources for this section, so I'd appreciate the input of others on that. I'd echo John's comments above that adding names of anyone involved back into the article at this stage is very likely to lead to sanctions under discretionary sanctions in place for material related to living people. GoldenRing (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC) I see Nyttend has reverted me, mostly due to concerns about the sourcing. I'm out of time to look into this today, but I doubt we're going to find anything much better than news reports for now. GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) I echo GoldenRing's thoughts about local sources to the point where under school article guidelines and WP:NOTNEWS this doesn't belong at all. Obviously that could change over time, but I cannot see any reason we would cover it until at least after the trials are over. Even then it is doubtful. Frankly it is far more likely that somewhere down the road this stuff could be an article than it is it should be covered here. I also echo Nyttend's opinion in his edit summary. There is no indication the school itself did anything improper here. This story is about students that attended the school, which the going consensus among school editors says is not about the school. The school is the bricks and mortar, it is the policies and it is the actions of the administration; it is not the action of any individual students or staff. John from Idegon (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC) This may potentially be appropriate in its own article (would still need to survive on its own rights via new article reviews); but in an article about a school, the material certainly flies in the face of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:NOTNEWS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Incidents such as these are not included in Wikipedia school articles. AS Barek says, it might one day be sufficient for a stand-alone article, but only if it meets guidelines for inclusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC) As the author of the content in question, I think that since these incidences happened on school grounds, the students were arrested on school grounds, and school administrators were involved in what investigators are referring to as a systemic coverup is relevant to the school's information. Not including something like that would be sort of like editing Columbine High School's page to not include the massacre. The suggestion of a separate page, I concede, maybe a good way to go forward, but like earlier the school's content must address it in some form. As for the citations of the overuse of news, I have looked through a good chunk of the evidence made available through public record or a FOIA and have been trying to include it with the content in question. What is really a problem is these incidences include minors and victims of sexual crimes, being mindful to adhering to all laws. I am all ears on how to accurately include there was two students charged as minors in regards to the hazing incidences. All juvenile court content is always sealed. We know they exist, we know what they are being charged with, and nothing is legal to publish after that point. Mind you the evidence in Thomas's cases overlaps with their cases and they will testify for the state in Thomas's case. Since Thomas has been arraigned, appealed the revocation of bail, and has had the evidentiary hearing, there is enough information to include just the timeline of the court hearings/arrests/search warrents and the evidence being used in the trial. I do not believe that would effect the case's wader session or any Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZOperator (talk • contribs) 00:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC) No, you are so far off, I'm not even sure where to start. There is ZERO justification to add a long drawn-out detailed timeline in an encyclopedia article about the school. You brought up Columbine High School. Firstly, please be aware that WP:Other Stuff Exists is not a viable argument - content is based on Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and Wikipedia editor community consensus. But, since you brought it up, take a look at the Columbine High School article. The event which took place there received extensive national and international coverage; and is still brought up in political discussions to this very day. Yet, there is no timeline of the event in the article about the high school. No detail of investigations. It contains three paragraphs; the first contains three sentences which state the event took place, when it took place, and the scope of news coverage received. The second paragraph is one sentence mentioning the immediate impact on the school itself (classes held at another facility); and the final paragraph addresses the lasting impact to the school grounds of construction work and a memorial. Now compare that to your content - which is restricted to local interest; and even if reliable sources exist, is in far too much excessive detail. It's hard to understand how you could possibly have read the links provided in early comments above (WP:SCH/AG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTNEWS), and still be interpreting them so drastically wrong. Looking at your editing history, it appears your sole purpose of editing Wikipedia has been to add material about this one event. Might I suggest that Wikipedia is simply not the right venue for your goals? You may be better served by creating a personal blog on some other service, as your goals of publishing detail timelines in the school article are incompatible with Wikipedia content guidelines for school articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Barek, I wanted to take a chance to respond to your concerns, but going forward tone down the rhetoric. Since our last interaction I tried to do so, and let slide a few incidences which would be against Wikipedia policy with other users referring to me or the content I was working on. To clear up a statement you made about me focusing only on this content is incorrect. I have added to Wikipedia going back to the early days when the site was just gaining critical mass, I have found and corrected flat out wrong material on several instances with no issues. This account is just because I forgot the password to the other account. This topic, in terms of content, is far different from what I have corrected in the past like explanations of mental health and legal implications in reference to the victims and alleged perpetrators. Also, I wish to get out ahead of anyone's misunderstanding I am not equating death with sexual assault. Both have separate, yet serious implications. Yes, I brought up Columbine since it was one of the best known tragic high school events in recent history, as you had pointed out. The Hamilton hazing is very tragic from the evidence thus far and far more complex then Columbine in different ways like the number of people involved, many illegal actions, and lots of angles - with a cultural undertone, which is too hard to explain therefore I would avoid it entirely. In terms of the law, the victims that died on that dreadful day (which I remember quite well) and the sexual assault victims here are both entitled to justice. As for the insinuation of placing a long drawn out timeline in just the school's page I agree with, you will see in my prior statement I did not think it was necessary. I conceded a separate page would be the best way to go, but acknowledging on the school's page this (I am going to use "scandal" from now on since its less time consuming) citing the separate page as being perfectly adequate. Others have come to the same conclusion if you read above. A Columbine like template for acknowledging the scandal is what I was referring to. I have read a good portion of the public record material regarding this, and I will admit I still have trouble wrapping my mind around it. It is also easy for someone to overlook hazing when political and media sources devote more time about concussions and kneeing for the national anthem. Not to mention, over the weekend a high school football player in AZ died suddenly on the field. This by no means implies people nationally are not talking. You would be right about internationally, one because it is complex high school program scandal and two the rest of the world likes soccer more. I can tell you this scandal has been covered by the AP, Reuters, ESPN, and the USA Today, with all of their subsidiaries. These sources also refer to other, less complex current scandals with 3 in Texas and another in California. Investigations are ongoing by the Chandler Police Department, with help from the County Sheriff's Office as well as the FBI for various forensic related evidence. So there is a significant scrutiny surrounding this. I may have mentioned most school districts's in Phoenix, the Arizona Interscholastic Association are waiting for all the information can be examined, arguments made, and suggestions of more effective rules are addressed prior to examining their own policies. People also seem to overlook the AIA does not make rules it just enforces them, rule changes come from a national organization which will be looking at it, since Hamilton football program is high profile being ranked several times in the top teams nationwide. Like I said, lots of angles and implications. It is premature to qualify what the impact will be in the long term. This is why I would avoid your seemingly clear cut permeant precedent on not including content as a whole for eternity this early. Wikipedia does not need to publish anything right away, everyone can sit back and wait. I was putting out a feeler if someone knew if the school's page could acknowledge the scandal or when to make the decision to make such acknowledgement. Plus, I did ask for opinions if or how to address the minor alleged perpetrators, which is a valid question. I would love to hear what you think, in a calm and collective way, hopefully interpreting my writing correctly. If I did not make something clear, I would suggest to simply ask for a clarification. I think keeping an open mind on this content, until we can definitively say it did not extend beyond a news cycle is the best methodology. I hope you have read correctly the web of associations/extensive implications could turn into something (which, after reviewing the materials, personally it looks like it may, but that is me and before you point it out that statement is not intended for content). Barek, I hope I cleared up a things for you. If you want any clarifications, kindly ask. AZOperator (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Again, there is nothing we can cover here. Although we will discuss the arrests of famous (that's much different than notable) people if it has gotten extensive coverage in reliable sources, we never discuss the mere arrest of not famous individuals. An arrest is not a conviction. In the eyes of the law, and in Wikipedia's view, innocence is presumed. A lawsuit being filed is not proof of anything. We cannot discuss any role the school may have had until it is adjudicated or settled. If you have a proposed addition to the article, I'd suggest you propose it here with sources. If it's more than 100 words in length, I'm pretty sure it will be dismissed out of hand. If it contains any names it will be dismissed out of hand (certain on that). The above is definitely WP:TLDR and likely WP:NOTFORUM. This page is for discussion of changes to the article, not for discussion of the subject of the article. Please summarize your thoughts when posting here and limit yourself to discussion of actual concrete changes to the article. That provides something that can actually be discussed. We're not here to theorize and every other editor here had other concerns on Wikipedia besides this. Please be respectful of that. John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) First off, I was addressing multiple concerns which needed to be cleared up. As I said earlier, sit and wait. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has already indicated charging administrator with felony charges, but we will not know the full extent until the cases start. Like I said earlier, this is an unbelievably complex scandal from just a small portion of the evidence. In a murder case, its one guy pulling one trigger hitting one person; sex crimes is far harder to understand. It is made even more difficult when investigators have to navigate through a coverup (their words, not mine). I agree entirely that the student arrests are not sufficient enough, nor the charges. I am fully aware of innocent before proven guilty (I am a very intelligent person with lots of experiences few can compare). Back to the content, categorically saying this scandal will never be content is premature until there is a better understanding of the implications. AZOperator (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916201901/http://www.thesundevils.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/robinson_gerell00.html to http://www.thesundevils.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/robinson_gerell00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120816065802/http://www.thesundevils.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/taylor_kerry00.html to http://www.thesundevils.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/taylor_kerry00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a better option. Wikipedia has articles on both Taylor and Robinson. Differ to those pages, that way you do not have to use these sites which are terribly out of date. 00:09, AZOperator (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC) 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Leading your post with a semicolon causes it to be in bold print, which is inappropriate. Instead, please use a colon. The links being discussed above are references. Using Wikipedia as a reference is against policy. See WP:RS. Wikipedia is not useful as a reference as it is dynamic. It may not say the same thing when it is looked at as when it was added as a reference. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted, typos are inevitable, not my intention. I thought the source references on the the player page could be better then the archival links. That was where I was going. AZOperator (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hazing investigation

I was alerted by the creation of an article on en.wikinews to the existence of a hazing scandal at this school, and after researching it myself I see no compelling reason not to mention it in the school article. It's received continuing coverage, the principal has been replaced and the athletic director permanently reassigned, and it's odd to have no mention of it at all, especially since the article is under-referenced and a bit of a puff piece. However, I checked here first and after seeing the collapsed section above, "Recent edits August 2017", I looked at GoldenRing's version and what I had in mind was much briefer and rather than a stand-alone "controversy" section, a paragraph at the end of the "Athletics" section. (I disagree with the idea of a whole article on the issue, per WP:NOTNEWS plus the fact I think that would be nastier BLP-wise. While I'm giving my opinion, I also think "Design" should be moved from after "Athletics" to before "Academics" and either retitled "Building" or combined with "Name" as a "History" section, and I think the "Athletics" section could do with some toning down.) Since there's been controversy over covering the hazing issue and since the status quo is not to have it, I'm going to draft my paragraph here on talk and put it up for consideration. Pinging in addition the other participants from the section above: John from Idegon, Barek, Kudpung, AZOperator. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

In January 2017, an investigation began into accusations of hazing of freshman players by members of the Hamilton football team, including sexual assault, beginning in September 2015. Three players were charged, one as an adult. Families of three alleged victims filed lawsuits against Chandler Unified School District. The football coach, athletic director, and principal, whom the police had recommended be charged for not promptly reporting the allegations, were reassigned by the district in September 2017, and the replacement of the coach made permanent in December.

References

Hmm... delicate. Well phrased, but I'm not sure if the sources would be in conflict with our BLP policy for not naming and shaming. We also have a sort of consensus at WP:WPSCH to keep information out of school articles that is not strictly encyclopedic. Someone care to give an further opinion? John?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As to the sources, I had a lot to choose from and minimized use of those where the article title itself mentioned a name. Names - and one photo - are of course there in the sources, but anyone searching on the name of the school will find that material, including more explicitly titled articles. I disagree that it's not encyclopedic, so long as it's kept short and within an appropriate section of the article; it's part of the school's history, unfortunately, which is why I was surprised to find it wasn't mentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer omitting coverage of this until (or unless - generally issues like this get settled with a gag order in place) the civil suits are ajudicated. The general consensus for school articles has been that the school is not the staff or students, and police investigations are nothing more than allegations until ajudicated. Also, altho someone has claimed widespread reporting of this incident has occurred I have not found it. I mention this because at one article that had a similar discussion, Steubenville High School in Ohio, the deciding factor for the local consensus there was the existence of widespread continuing coverage. The way that got handled was a separate article and a "See also" entry on the school article. Another similar article involved bullying and a suicide but that title is escaping me (somewhere in California), but that incident did not involve the school in any way and had huge coverage. The incident has it's own article and there's a See also for it at the school article. Another factor in the Ohio incident is the civil case did not settle with a gag order.

So the TLDR version is: omit unless or until civil cases settle, per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. John from Idegon (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that there is no reason to name anyone, but in my view encyclopedic coverage requires us to reflect what reliable sources say about the school, and this issue dominates news coverage of the school, throughout 2017. It's possible that it's also been extensively covered in previous years for its academic and/or athletic record, or that the campus won an architectural award, and I admit I haven't searched, but the article is so poorly referenced that I doubt there's much to be found. Hence I think we're whitewashing (which is the TLDR of my viewpoint), and if there is truly a compelling reason to do that, I think the rest of the article should be stubbed as unsourced, in conformity with entirely leaving out something that is sourced. I don't believe a stand-alone article is a solution in this case, whatever its merits in other cases: it would be purely news-like, excessive, and more, not less, damaging to BLP subjects involved to treat the issue as independently notable, rather than a part of the history of the school. I also don't buy the argument that we should wait for a legal resolution: the history of the school has been affected by the reassignment of three staffers including the principal, and that can't be undone even if the whole thing is found to be unfounded or is settled out of court. (Even if a gag order is issued, the media coverage cannot be effectively expunged. I selected four from among a bunch of sources, and note that one of them is a branch of the USA Today website. It's gone beyond local as well as beyond short-term coverage.) Also, by not naming names and by keeping it succinct, I believe we avoid coatracking and harming living people by including it in the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, could you please link to the Wikinews item? I would like to read it and sleep on it before commenting further. John from Idegon (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Hamilton Hazing Scandal. It's the equivalent of a draft, it hasn't been "published", and see the criticisms on the talk ("Collaboration") page. It turns out to also be by AZOperator. Since it stated at the outset that it was using primary sources, I didn't look at its sources and made my own search. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Yngvadottir. I can endorse some content, but more on the line of one or two sentences, not paragraphs. At some point, the Athletics section is going to be considerably shorter, as it obviously needs work and I sure don't have the time now (the Christmas season is mad busy IRL for me). Kudpung may disagree with me on this. I think we can easily remove some dates, just giving an overall timeframe at the beginning and an "as of" for an overview of the personnel actions. I'll try to write something today. We also need to state specifically that the incidents had occurred at the school. I sure hope WN doesn't publish that.John from Idegon (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I see my proposed paragraph is 34 sentences, so we're close. And yes, I think this article needs to be rewritten, tightened up and reordered. However, wondering why AZOperator hadn't spoken up here, I checked whether they were still editing Wikipedia and found they've added a large section on the coach's coaching career—I wasn't aware he has an article—and it contains a lengthy paragraph relating to this scandal. Far too much under BLP, I think. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

... and it occurs to me, since the former coach is notable, that the alternative, even more minimalistic way to deal with this is a one-sentence paragraph at the end of a new History section to onclude the construction info:

As of September 2017, Chris Farabee, a former assistant principal, is acting principal of the school; Principal Ken James, the school athletic director, and Steve Belles, the football coach, were reassigned by Chandler Unified School District during investigation of accusations of hazing on the football team, the coaching position being subsequently advertised as open.

References

I'd prefer to keep it under Athletics and set it out more straightforwardly as I previously proposed. The shorter version almost dares the reader to read the references to find what we aren't saying, and to my mind implies that the event is important because it affected the careers of administrators including a coach who has an article. But no, I don't believe a school is just the bricks and mortar, and since we have an article, we have kind of obligated ourselves to link the name (which I have coloned out on this page). I was in any event intending to look at the infobox and change to the acting principal if they weren't there yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

O' I have been watching. The section on Steve Belles's coaching was written by me, his notoriety came from coaching not as a player. With that said, think of the gravity of this storyline. If you read from top to bottom the article on Wikinews, I am still trying to figure out all the details. There are over 40 citations which leaves out one glaring point - the discovery file does not exist. Everything available right now are preliminary court documents and interviews. I concur with the previous statement about these events being linked to the school forever, but I think holding off to the discovery file would be better option. AZOperator (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Still not getting it I see. Belles would not have an article if he hadn't played in Arena football. Notariety isn't relevant here, but notability is, and there is nothing about his coaching career that would indicate notability, not even the event we're here to discuss. Primary sources are irrelevant here, and extensive content such as you've pushed before is never going to be included here. At most, we'll be having a couple lines, because no matter how important this seems at this time, it's a series of events that involved only a few students and staff that should have acted differently but didn't, over a period of a couple years. Schools are generally around a long long time. Whatever we include has to be in the context of that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can so easily assume that "only a few students" should have acted differently, from the news coverage so far. Perhaps not even "only a few staff". Only a few of each facing legal or career consequences, yes. The consequences for plenty of other students -- and, to a lesser extent, staff -- seem likely to be considerable. MPS1992 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhere in the middle. It's an important enough part of the history of the school to be included for two reasons: a lot of reliable sources covering it (I see the WikiNews article also cites a Reuters article) over a substantial period, and it led to a change of principal. How bad it actually was is not our place to speculate about, both because that would be synthesis and because legal judgements haven't been handed down yet. But it would be best to cover it straightforwardly, with the minimum of gawking detail or naming of names, and giving the reader good sources to check if desired. And to rework the article to be leaner and more source-based, especially since that might lead to more of the school's history that's been written about and we don't yet have; that's the best way to offset the unfortunate fact that right now, this is what the school appears notable for. I'm hoping there's coverage still to be found about the construction, for example. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into an argument with you John over Steve Belles, take that argument to that page. As Yngvadottir says, it was a substantial period of time, I agree 2015-2017 and beyond for the cases is lots of time. As MPS1992 points out, it is far more then a few students, Chandler PD in their latest information dump counts 11 additional victims. I would also add into that last dump revealed a previously unknown incident being investigated in Gilbert, and somehow two student females got involved. That is why I am saying the discovery file is so important. AZOperator (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• So ... should I just be bold and put in my original suggested section, plus a link to the coach's name, then rewrite and update the rest as best I can? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes please. MPS1992 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds like a plan. I'll help with other updates as I can, but I'm not interested in dealing with the controversy stuff or arguing about what other content may grow out of your addition. Good luck, and please continue to watch. I'm afraid your going to find this a case of no good deed being unpunished. John from Idegon (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have made a start, beginning with adding substantially the same paragraph as I originally proposed here, but including the coach's name. I changed the organization, started tightening up, and started working on the references; there are a lot of broken links, and many alumni were both mentioned in two places and unreferenced ... but now I must go to bed. I'll look at it again tomorrow. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to point out a few factual errors before you get too entrenched which are easily fixed. #1 We do not know if the victims were freshmen, all we know is they were 15 or younger at the time of the attacks. #2 There are 5 victims suing Hamilton and the sixth is suing on his own. #3 Belles and Rustad had Failure to Report Child Abuse first - Belles, Rustad, and James had additional charges of Child Abuse recommended after a binder was recovered. #4 Chandler PD recognizes 11 victims (only 6 cooperating).

On another note, this is a really complex and sensitive case Yngvadottir. If you are this adventurous, keep away from the names or any definite situations. Tread lightly, child abuse and the pending cases should not be taken lightly. Also, be aware there have been several death threats, intimidation, and ostracizing events not limited to the students, adults and instructors have been censured for retaliations. AZOperator (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going by what I found in the sources, hence mentioning "freshmen", and I left out ages and all other details as best I could (including ages, age ranges used in legal classification, and names other than the acting principal and, since we have an article, the coach). I just revisited the sources I used and "freshmen" is justified from them, so I don't envisage changing the summary. I'm particularly keen not to update it until the cases are all settled. The point about not having this dominate the article is valid, apart from the BLP issues. So, thanks for looking at it, but I'm now seeking to improve the rest by adding sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Really what I was trying to drive home was how serious this has become. As for the settled cases, one of the juvenile cases was resolved, but I would advise you not to include it in any form. As for the acting principal, athletic director, and head coach - all are clearly defined as interim and really should not be cited. Keep the focus on the investigation. If you need sources, I can provide you with others from the timeline. Me and the WikiNews people agreed it was such a large and complicated case, they lacked the editorial tools to handle something like it. We pulled it down, but I still have the sources and all materials related to it. AZOperator (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• If you guys reach a clear consensus as to what should be included (or not) , that's fine by me. However, I would point out WP:UNDUE and that Wikipedia is not a 'Good (or bad) Schools Guide'. I'm particulary sensitive on these BLP issues in school articles because we have recently had a spate of similar edits to other 'Controversy' sections in schools where the editor(s) (and their socks) had a clear agenda and ended up being indeffed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, nobody seems to have any specific objections to the paragraph I added except for the two issues I see AZOperator raising above: that there have been subsequent legal developments (I see that as undue) and that the principal is interim/acting and so should not be included (I decided not to add that word in the infobox but otherwise disagree until they appoint someone else). Thanks for looking. I'm hoping to be able to find and add more references to minimize its prominence. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue going forward, but it should be revisited periodically. As this thing evolves it maybe worth handling it in some other form - what that is will depend on the evolution. Good luck and make sure you use atleast two citations for anything since it is high profile. AZOperator (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have expected John from Idegon (talk) to move on but he wants to revive an old conflict where I am somehow hopelessly incapable of recognizing incorrect information and the ability to change it. I will let his previous remarks speak volumes about his opinions. With that said, I looked at the paragraph, thinking the due diligence was done to fix the factual inaccuracies. However it did not happen, so I purpose keeping the layout and the overall tone the same with this:

In January 2017, an investigation began into underclassmen hazing accusations allegedly perpetrated by other members of the Hamilton football team. The investigation reported incidents starting in September 2015, with alleged sexual, aggravated, and simple assault with kidnapping. Three players were charged, one as an adult. Families of the six alleged victims have filed civil lawsuits against Chandler Unified School District. The investigation recommended failure to report child abuse and child abuse charges against the football coach (Steve Belles), athletic director, and principal. All three administrators were reassigned to the district offices in September 2017. In December 2017, Hamilton High School issued a job opening for head varsity football coach.

References

I believe that changing freshmen to underclassmen is more accurate, but not really important. I think the root of the misunderstanding was the "Fresh-meat" reference which was a saying but does not compartmentalize the victims to just freshmen. All factual changes were based on long term incontrovertible material and placed two citations given the seriousness of the topic. I am open to constructive comments. AZOperator (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@AZOperator: I do now see one source saying the victims were "mostly" freshmen, so I may change that detail; when it was first brought up, I looked again and saw only another source I had used saying "freshmen". For the rest, however, I disagree; as I wrote at the start of this section, my view is that a stand-alone article would contravene WP:NOTNEWS and the spirit of BLP. Respect for living persons as well as avoiding undue weight makes me desire to keep the treatment of the scandal minimal, and I included Belles' name only because you pointed out we have an article on him. Otherwise I note that your comment here that was removed by SarekOfVulcan not only speculated on people's motivations, it went against your own advice above to minimize the use of names. I very much agree with that advice. Nobody can stop you from writing up a freestanding article, but I do think it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia and would be deleted at AfD, and since these are living people, I really hope you won't do it. I'm sad that I couldn't find more sources to fill out the rest of the article to counterbalance the scandal; unfortunately I just couldn't find anything about, for example, the building design, or even the expansion. And some of the athletics claims remain unsourced, although I did find a few good sources on football in particular. What the article needs is more sourced information about the school, to round out the picture. It should not include a blow-by-blow account of the investigation or court proceedings, or any unnecessary names, because that's not Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia, is my position, so I'm glad your version that further emphasized it was reverted. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Noting that I missed that the editor had been indeffed by the time I posted this; I wish someone had courtesy pinged me at the AN/I discussion, but I'll leave my comments here as context for any future discussion. I've made some further changes to the coach's article, and hope people will let me know if they think I've been undue or otherwise contravened good BLP practice anywhere in relation to this school. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There are factual inaccuracies with this paragraph. There were 5 families in the civil case, and did not explicitly say anything about "mainly freshmen" in any of the articles cited here or on the actual page. In fact, the more accurate article, written much later, said that one started as a sophomore so leaving out two words is reasonable compromise. Changed the last sentence to reflect the new head coach. 72.223.2.182 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Recommending Changes to Article

@John from Idegon: You have requested me to place my thoughts on the articles talk page. These are my recommendations:

1. Fix the div table for the athletic teams. Somehow it always gets dropped.
2. Change the lede for the Athletic section to "Hamilton Athletics are governed by the Arizona Interscholastic Association and is a member of the 6A Athletics Conference in the Premier region. There are varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen teams for girls and boys under Title IX".
3. Truncate the History section to:

   "Hamilton High School opened in 1998 with 1,600 students in freshman through junior years, in a still agricultural area on the edge of the city. It was named after the Hamilton family, one of the pioneer families of Chandler, who farmed the land where the school now stands. John Augustus Hamilton was a World War I combat veteran and sheriff of the southeast area of Phoenix. The school's football stadium now stands on what was known for years as Hamilton's Corner, the corner of Arizona Avenue/Arizona State Route 87 and Ocotillo, where the Hamiltons ran a general store."

4. Move a chunk of text under a "Campus" section which is acceptable under Wikipedia:WPSC/AG:

   "The main structure is a two-story enclosed building completed in August 1998 by Stantec on a $33 million bond for Chandler Unified School District. Classrooms and primary facilities are located on one of eight main hallways, each of which has its own staircase and which also connect administrations office, cafeteria, gym, and auditorium with an overall size of 387,000 ft². The campus was originally built to hold 3,000 students; as of 2 October 2017, there are 3,740 enrolled. A second two-story building was completed in September 2014 featuring 12-classrooms was intended for freshmen and sophomore students, accompanying double wide temporary classrooms located in the north parking lots."

   "The auditorium and cafeteria each seat about 600 students and the gym has collapsable stands able to seat 1,900 students. Ten tennis courts, two soccer fields, 4 baseball fields, and 2 softball fields with other training facilities."

   "Jerry Loper Field named after the former Chandler High School Football Coach Jerry Loper, and the seats approximately 10,000 without temporary stands that can be used during high profile events. The stadium bi-annually hosts the high profile football game between Chandler and Hamilton known as the "Battle of Arizona Ave." which brings upwards of 20,000 fans.[11] Within stadium grounds is an original building referred to the as the Field House housing with locker rooms and other athletic facilities. A separate weightlifting facility was finished in 2017, but is not connected to the Field House."

5. Under the "Campus" section, a subsection for "Public Facilities" like:

   "There is a Chandler Public Library which is open year round to both students and the public near the main entrance. The doors which enter the main part of the school remain locked from the general public due to security reasons."

   "On the southern end of the property is a Chandler Aquatic Center which is open to the public during the summer months. It also features an Olympic sized swimming pool used for Hamilton Swim and Dive teams to practice and host events."

These are the items I am purposing for change right now as they are right now. There are several arguments to be made for a better form of showing the athletic awards possibly a table. PigSkinsAndComputers (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One last thing, include the Hamilton High School Homepage and Chandler Unified School Districts Homepage under the external links. PigSkinsAndComputers (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

History Section

I found that the entire history section was plagiarized from here, promptly removed the content. -PigSkinsAndComputers (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements

@John from Idegon: I realize that you have a few issues on the sections and text, so I would like to tell you what I was aiming for. The change log does not fully explain the issues and would like to know how to get some of these changes approved. Campus affiliation I can live without and would be best suited for Arizona College Preparatory page.

As for the athletics section, my changes were to remove the statement about the "open bracket" playoff since teams/individuals are placed into the "open bracket", not the entire school. There is another issue with the conference since Hamilton has been in 5A, 5A Division I, and 6A. under which they have went from freedom, fiesta, southeast, metro, premier, and now Section 2. So getting rid of a frequently changing areas I think this is more accurate:

Hamilton is an Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA) member school offering boys and girls sports complying with Title IX. Student athletes can participate in varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen only teams as well as individual athletics in:

The next area we differ is the varsity baseball team. I would like to move the softball team section after the baseball team just for cohesiveness. Here are some changes that more inline with the paragraphs used in the football team section.

The Boys Baseball team has the third most Arizona State Championships with 7 since 1985.[49] The program has travelled throughout the nation and has invited prominent teams nation wide.[50] In 2020, Hamilton Varsity Baseball had a preseason ranking of 4th in the nation by MaxPreps' Xcellent 25. Hamilton baseball was shutdown midseason by COVID-19 Pandemic when they had achieved 1st in the Xcellent 25.[54]

Golf I must admit is difficult the section to write but is also notable for the number of state and national championships. I have not found a good example throughout wikipedia on how to format so I went this maybe better:

Boys Golf Team National Championships: 2011 and 2019 Arizona State Championship: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, and 2019 Runners-up: 2018 Individual State Championships: Brad Nicholson (2005), Richard Lee (2006), David Logston(2007), CJ Kim (2008 and 2009), Jino Sohn (2014), Trueman Park (2015), and Johnny Walker (2019)

Hamilton Golf has qualified for the Arizona State Playoffs starting consecutively in 1999. Head coach Steve Kanner was awarded Coach of the Year honors in 2019 by The Arizona Republic.

Girls Golf Team Arizona State Champions: 2019 Runners-up: 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 Individual State Championships: Violeta Retamoza (2001), Kyung Kim (2010), Hannah Li (2016), and Joy Callinan (2019)

Hamilton Golf was the first school to sweep the all team and individual golf Championships.[58]

Lastly the section about the Notable People has been reverted and do not understand why. The major thing I was changing the commas to "-" since that was inline with the faculty syntax. I also placed the much needed sources with the appropriate Wikipedia links as well as placing "former" whenever there the athlete was no longer playing. The names added to the list are cited and consistent with the notability of the other names on the list. Could you please elaborate more?

Faculty

• Steve Belles - NFL/AFL Quarterback - Former Varsity Head Football Coach[73]
• Mark Tucker - NFL player and AFL coach - Varsity Defensive Line Coach[74][75]
• Bob Wylie - NFL Defensive Coordinator - Varsity Defensive Coordinator[75][76]

Alumni

• Cody Bellinger - MLB - player with the Los Angeles Dodgers[77]
• Eric Farris - MLB - former player with the Milwaukee Brewers[78]
• Mitch Nay - MiLB - player drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays and plays for the Chattanooga Lookouts[79]
• Cole Luke - NFL - player with the Carolina Panthers
• Dontay Moch - NFL/CFL - player with the Cincinnati Bengals, Arizona Cardinals, Tennessee Titans, and Toronto Argonauts[80]
• Gerell Robinson - NFL - former player with the Cleveland Browns[81]
• Terrell Suggs - NFL - player with the Baltimore Ravens, Arizona Cardinals, and Kansas City Chiefs[82]
• Kerry Taylor - NFL - former player with the Arizona Cardinals and Jacksonville Jaguars[83]
• Christian Westerman - NFL - player the Cincinnati Bengals[84]
• Andrew Yun - PGA - 2011 & 2012 Palmer Cup Champion[85][86]
• Chan Kim - PGA - player in the Canadian Golf Tour and Japan Golf Tour[85][87]
• Richard T. Lee - PGA/KPGA - player in the Nationwide Tour and Asian Tour[85][88]
• Tony Cascio - MLS - player with the Arizona United[89]
• Hannah O'Sullivan - 2015 U.S. Women's Amateur Golf champion[90]
• Kylee Saunders - J-Pop star[91]
• Viputheshwar Sitaraman - Entrepreneur[92]

--PigSkinsAndComputers (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)