Talk:Steubenville, Ohio

Important Tips Before Editing This Article

1. Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
2. Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
3. Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Steubenville rape case

Is it not a bit odd that something as inconsequential as the city's traffic cameras warrant extensive coverage in the article, but mere mention of one of the most major rape cases in recent history (that has made worldwide news due to the involvement of Anonymous and it's relevance as a rape that was tweeted etc.) is consistently deleted as "vandalism". Bias? 196.209.236.68 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected. If you have something to add or remove at this point you must be a registered, confirmed user. Feel free to register and add anything you like. --Rawlangs (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why don't we have anything about this?--'King of nothing" (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mention is made in in the section Sports & Controversy and has not been removed from the article since January 3. If you think it should be in the lead, please add it, but try to stick to WP:LEAD if you want your edits to stick. --Rawlangs (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

" and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Of course, people eager to cover up a mass rape will likely try to hide this story in blatant disregard of WP:LEAD. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.205.36 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Relax. Nothing is being covered up. The reason the page is semi-protected is because IPs were edit warring over its inclusion. Someone would add mention of the rape crew, and that mention would be immediately removed by a different anonymous user. Since semi-protection, the people removing content haven't made any such edits. In fact, fine, I'll add mention to the lead now. --Rawlangs (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, mention added to lead. Might save yourselves some time by assuming good faith and remembering wikipedia is not compulsory. Editors are real people and can choose to put as much or as little effort into requests as they wish. This is a user-edited space. Please register and confirm your account to make your own edits to this page (especially if you have views you feel are not or should be better represented). --Rawlangs (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you mention that Wikipedia is not compulsory? Was someone forcing or pushing you to stay here even though you wanted to leave?

People working here should not let an obvious omission stand, only because they are volunteers. Work here is not compulsory, but the addition of relevant facts should be. (Note that I said nothing about the actual case.) --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the IP above said "people eager to cover up a mass rape will likely try to hide this story in blatant disregard of WP:LEAD" strongly implying anyone who didn't put that statement in the lead was involved in some sort of conspiracy. It was not an obvious omission. It is in fact a questionable inclusion and is likely to be shortened or outright removed over time. There is nothing compulsory about the inclusion of relevant facts (otherwise, once started, it would be compulsory to work on an article until it was finished. It's not). Cheers. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation is a bit far-fetched. It's more likely that the IP was talking about the repeated removal of the content, not merely its non-inclusion.

If you don't think that relevant should be included in an article, you should seriously reconsider your further participation here. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Did I say that? By all means include relevant information. There is a duty not to vandalize the wiki. The point above simply notes the wiki does not demand participation from anyone, ever. If you look at the article history and this talk page, I believe you'll find I've been the single most persistent contributor of this information. I would remind you to assume good faith, a point I believe you've made in your own defence. Cheers. --Rawlangs (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: create an article for this case, the same way there is one for Amanda Todd. I think the news coverage is starting to warrant it. --Rockstonetalk to me! 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2013

Half of Big Red are rapists...

89.242.178.78 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: No constructive edit request made. If any user in good standing sees fit to remove the above comment as vandalism you have my permission to delete this comment as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No constructive request was made by him. Here is one from me: There is one very notable event in Steubenville, well covered by national media which should be mentioned in the article. Warbola (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

At the time of your comment the incident was already mentioned in the article. Kuyabribri quite properly moved it out of the lead and into the body in accordance with WP:LEAD. --Rawlangs (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape Case in Lead

I have added three sentences about the rape case to the lead. At the moment, this makes discussion of the rape case about 1/3 of the lead. However, I believe inclusion is demanded by WP:LEAD which states the lead should mention any prominent controversies. I also restricted the citations to what was at the time the most recent (and most complete) free article on the topic I could find. I believe the large proportion of the lead devoted to the rape case reflects an anaemic lead more than undue weight. After all, it's only two sentences, and most of the article content is not yet reflected in the lead as it should be. I do not believe the content violates WP:NPOV as the content maintains the presumption of innocence, does not name any of the accused or suspected, and provides at-a-glance facts about a current news event. I'm open to debate this with anyone who cares to. --Rawlangs (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I came to this page for reasons unrelated to the rape, and was instantly struck by its inclusion in the lead. A horrible thing for the victim and disturbing for the community, to be sure, but is this single incident -- and so far, the crime is alleged, not proven -- more noteworthy than, say, a two-decade pattern of civil rights abuse by police that led to federal sanctions and the needless expenditure of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars? I think not. PRRfan (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. I'd just say the corruption has not been as widely covered as the rape. The criteria for notability might lean more towards exclusion than inclusion, but the event has received international coverage. I'll also note that it's probably the number one reason anyone outside of the US has ever heard of Steubenville. Let's look to WP:EVENT for guidance. --Rawlangs (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: My interpretation of WP:EVENT supports inclusion.

1. WP:EFFECT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Pass. We don't know whether or how this will affect the town in the long term.
2. WP:GEOSCOPE "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article." Questionable. The event has received coverage in the US, UK, and Canada (at least). This should probably lean towards making inclusion more likely.
3. WP:INDEPTH "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines..." Pass. The Atlantic Wire in particular has been following this event closely with almost daily updates. International news outlets have been covering the event.
4. WP:PERSISTENCE "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Questionable. Coverage of the event has been consistently updated in news sources that have covered it, but it remains to be seen how long it will remain in the news.
5. WP:DIVERSE "Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source. A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article." Pass. The event has been covered in print, online, and on television locally, nationally, and internationally.

Thoughts? --Rawlangs (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Coverage in Germany --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated. Let me know where you'd like to see it. (I don't read German, so if you do, I'd appreciate your pointing out where I can cite this). I'd be happy to make the necessary edits for you. --Rawlangs (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe to support the "international attention" in the lede? I posted this mainly to support the point about WP:GEOSCOPE and for future reference. The article is surely only a summary of the events, written after Anonymous got involved.

Quick translation of the blurb: "Football player from a small town in Ohio allegedly raped a girl. Is the full extent of the crime suppressed? Other teenagers are said to have witnessed the crime and applauded it. They are now pilloried - in the Internet."

I get the vague impression that the German text is in turn a translation from another language, some expressions are a little off. Wouldn't be surprising of course.

BTW, to be able to assess this better: Der Spiegel is the premier German weekly, the website ranks number 11 in Germany according to Alexa. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tried to edit the lede to broaden the issue about corruption in the city. Although the alleged rape is big news, the overall reputation of Stuebenville's corruption is the bigger picture and really belongs in the lede- the city was long known for its bad politics before the rape occurred. Additionally, I tried to include mention of the role of Anonymous in the story, as this is what really makes this story notable (sad to say rape of teenage girls at parties occurs too often to be noteworthy of and by itself). Let's discuss. Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the city's reputation is what will suffer lasting impact from the rape case. The rape, however, has received more international coverage than the local media corruption. In principle I have no problem mentioning as part of a wider discussion of the city's reputation. For the moment, however, I wouldn't remove mention entirely from the lead. Let's use this as an excuse to expand and improve the lead rather than shrink it further. --Rawlangs (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful walkthrough of WP:EVENT. I suspect you're right: that the vast majority of visits to this page for at least the next few months will be in connection with the (alleged) rape, and so perhaps the current level of detail in the lead about the incident is justified. But after a verdict is returned in the trial, I suspect the lead ought to look something like this: "The city drew international attention for the brutal 2012 rape of a local teenager by two members of the high school football team." PRRfan (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a phrase like "the city drew international attention" is actually a good thing to add now; it explains the presence of sentences about a single crime in the lead. Also, the sentence about people who weren't arrested appears below; it doesn't belong in the lead.PRRfan (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Excellent edit and thank you. --Rawlangs (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Anonymous be part of the mention in the lede as its actions is what really brought this alleged crime to national attention? Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No. If Anonymous deserves mention at all, it belongs in the body of the article with the other details. PRRfan (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone deleted the previous mention of Anonymous in the body of the article. I reentered it. I aslo moved the section about the rape out of the "Culture/Sports" section and into "History". Although memebers of the football team were alleged to have participated in the event, it seemed odd placing it in the sports section. Wkharrisjr (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the intro section, because: 1) it's the 2nd item in the table of content section, 2) immediately below the TOC it shows up again in the history section. This information isn't buried way down in the article. Seriously how the heck can anyone miss it in the history section? Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline states: "This page contains advice about style. As such it contains the recommendations and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to present articles within their area of interest." It is not a policy page like WP:EVENT. WP:LEAD demands the inclusion of prominent controversies as discussed above. It doesn't have to be "buried way down in the article" for inclusion the lead. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the body of the article regarding this, I just do not see including in the lede something that isn't in the article. Also, in the long run, the ONLY thing that will be notable about this is the involvement of Anonymous. Sad as it is, rape is a commonplace occurrence. In 2011, according to the FBI crime statistics, there were 83,425 forcible rapes in the United States. That is roughly one every 6.5 minutes. At this point, there has been some extensive media coverage. But, due to the sensational nature of news reporting, I would be willing to bet that there will be very little if any widespread media interest in this case as the trials unfold. I also suspect, by the comments above regarding local corruption, that many of the arguments here are being brought by locals in the Steubenville area. What seems important to the locals is not necessarily, and most likely, shouldn't be what is in the article. This article is about Steubenville, not for Steubenville. All articles on Wikipedia are to be written from a world perspective, not a local one. From a world view, this is a minor story, only elevated in importance by the involvement of Anonymous. Take a deep breath, folks. Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and we need to wait to see what unfolds before we invest much into this article. Remember, as heinous as this event is (and I am certainly not saying otherwise), it is something that involved only a few people for only a few minutes. IMHO, you are trying to give this one event way too much importance in this article, which is supposed to be about Steubenville, a city that has been in existence for 218 years.

In short, I think a small mention, without its own header, in the history section is all this merits. Also, it should certainly mention Anonymous, because they are the only reason this received any attention beyond the local area. A very viable alternative would be a short blurb like what you are trying to get into the lede, in the history section, with a link to the much more extensive write up at the Steubenville High School article.

BTW, I tried to access the city's website to look for local crime stats. Is it down due to Anonymous? Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

By all means mention anonymous if you think they deserve mention. Also, if you think the content belongs in the history section, feel free to move it. It's been moving around the article as we work toward consensus. As to your other comments, I respectfully disagree. Responding point by point:

1. "There is nothing in the body of the article regarding this" There is in fact an entire section in the body regarding this.
2. "in the long run, the ONLY thing that will be notable about this is the involvement of Anonymous" Seeing as the case has not come to trial, it is entirely premature to make this type of presumption. Further WP:EVENT allows us to include information even before we know the long term impact of the event.
3. "due to the sensational nature of news reporting, I would be willing to bet that there will be very little if any widespread media interest in this case as the trials unfold" Painting all of the reporting on this issue as "sensational" is overgeneralizing. See the cited CBC article which reported on an attempt to change the venue. Further, the Guardian has used this story as an opportunity to discuss the general social malaise of the rust belt.
4. "by the comments above regarding local corruption, that many of the arguments here are being brought by locals in the Steubenville area" While this might be true, it has no bearing on the rape issue as that has been reported internationally. I'm a born and bred Canadian, and have never even visited Ohio. I care enough about this to be writing to you right now.
5. "we need to wait to see what unfolds before we invest much into this article" True, which is why this is not the only, or even the most significant issue in the article. It is however the most significant controversy surrounding the town, as evinced by the worldwide scope of the reporting. Ask the average Joe about Steubenville and if they've heard about it, it's because they've heard about this.
6. "IMHO, you are trying to give this one event way too much importance in this article" The rape case is in fact the only thing most people in the world have heard about Steubenville, making it the single most notable item in the article. It satisfies WP:EVENT (as argued above). The football team is one of the biggest cultural drivers in the town, and in the area. The story is being used to discuss rape culture in the US, and social malaise in the rust belt.

In my opinion, your arguments are based on mistaken understandings of both WP:EVENT and WP:LEAD. While I assume you're trying to be constructive, removal is not improving the article in this case. Cheers. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Good arguments. I was basing my statement about the body of the article on yesterday's version, which was definitely my bad. The localism bit comes from much time editing articles on communities all over the US, and seeing unfolding events get put into the article and never get brought back to a size that reflects their proper weight. The traffic cam bit in this article is a prime example. This is a 200+ year old community. We can't possibly judge the proper weight of this now, but I will promise you that at best, in the long run, this will end up being a footnote at best. The impact of WWII and the Great Depression, the Rust Belt effect you mentioned (although I can't see how a rape can relate to that. I think we will see it has far more to do with how we train and motivate high school athletes), all have much more long term importance to the history of the town than 1 crime. I haven't the time now to finish this, just wanted to let you know I appreciated your reasoned arguments. More later. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- Sorry, I don't believe this belongs in the lede at all. Not only is it undue wieght, it doesn't qualify as having anything to do with the city. The section in this article should also be shortened. I am not arguing it shouldn't be mentioned, but in the scope of over 200 years of history, the rape case has very little to do with the city itself. Wikipedia isn't a gossip magazine, it's an encyclopedia. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I read over Undue weight again, and it clearly says: "...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Considering that a google search for "Steubenville Ohio" turns up hundreds of articles that are mostly covering the rape case, I would argue that it is, in fact, very prominent and notable.Rgambord (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the City of Steubenville. Steubenville has more than 200 years of history. If you do a Google news search, and use the Archive option, you will see there are more than 100,000 different articles that are about or mention Steubenville. None of which has anything to do with the rape case. One article I found was quite interesting. It's about 17 year-old Ethelender Loy, who shot and killed her abusive father. There was massive coverage of that case too. It was in 1935. Almost 80 years ago. In 2093(80 years from now), what will the rape case have to do with Steubenville, Ohio? Also, there is already an article about the incident, because it has some notability. It's notability has nothing to do with where the rape took place. The city itself had nothing to do with the crime. A crime that happens several times a month on college campuses all over the World. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The notability of the case isn't due to the fact that a woman was raped, but that it made international news. I did a news search for "Steubenville" prior to June 30, 2012, and less than 100 articles were written mentioning the city within the last 45 years. I did a search for "Steubenville rape" following the date, June 30, 2012, and over 1,000 articles were returned. I refer back to WP:Undue, ""...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You are equating the 9 months of news coverage to what amounts to 450 years, normally. No?Rgambord (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Either something is wrong with my computer, or you grossly over-represented the number of articles returned. I can only go 10 pages in to the archives, and there are only 10 pages of articles prior to the rape case, outside of the archives. This gives a grand total of 200 news articles on the city of Steubenville within the last 100 years, and 1,000 within the last 9 months. Rgambord (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. No offense, Hoss, but you don't seem to know how to use Google News. I mean, just common sense wise one would have to realize there are many more articles concerning Steubenville than 200. A hint for you is that Google lists how many articles are known at the top of the page, and then they are split into sections. Perhaps if people want to edit this article they should have more than a "rape case" understanding of the city itself. Since, you know, this article is about the actual city. Steubenville was the gateway to the West and the main launching point for exploring the Northwest Territories. From the Ohio River to the Missouri. The city was also known as the City of Murals, and many painters from around the world visited and migrated there. There is a lot more to this city than some over-sensationalized rape case that draws the attention of TMZ and National Enquirer gawkers. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the new google layout (search tools hides the article # when it's open). So, 24,600 articles since July 31, 2012. 8,590 prior to July 31, 2012. This case was covered on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, TIME, NYT, etc... So, here we have the difference between your opinion (over sensationalized) and wikipedia policy. Rgambord (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rape case independent article

I am somewhat surprised that an article on the case has yet to appear on WP. I am assuming this is because of questions over Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Current Events Editing, as well as Undue and other reasons. However, as has been stated above, more people are going to come to this page because of it and it seems to me that it is time for the case to have an article by itself. The case has been covered by the New York Times, CNN, Good morning America, the Guardian, Daily Mail. I think we have enough RS and the fact that it has been reported so widely establishes notability, does it not? I suspect that there are other reasons editors here have been reluctant to make a page, and feel here would be the appropriate place to discuss the matter.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You're pretty well on the button there. The relevant policy can be found in WP:EVENT. You can see my interpretation of those guidelines in the discussion above. If the event satisfies WP:EVENT, it merits inclusion in wikipedia. Cheers. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It clearly deserves an article, I've actually got a summary of the events written up, but haven't gotten around to writing an actual article. Ryan Vesey 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

By all means. Let's be bold and get this going. Post here when it's up and I'll do a copyedit. --Rawlangs (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There was an article, but it was very POV and got deleted. Personally, I don't think there should be an article. News events are only supposed to have articles if it is obvious they will have some sort of long term effect, like changes in laws or policies, or a continuing wide-spread impact on the collective psyche. The only thing that is unusual about this event is the involvement of Anonymous. Sad as it is, multiple teenage girls get raped every day. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:EVENT allows for creation of a page even before long term impact has been determined. All we have right now is the extent of coverage, which is pretty wide. I don't think we have enough info to delete an entire article providing it complies to WP:CRIME and WP:NPOV. But that's just one person's opinion. --Rawlangs (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Since no one else is doing it, I decided to BE BOLD, grab the bull by the horns, and just do it. I'm designating the Steubenville High School article the primary article to hold the text about this event (or until someone creates a new article for the event). The text in the Steubenville, Ohio article should be VERY short, similar to this Newtown, Connecticut#2012 school shooting section. Please thin down text in this article ASAP. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, nonsense. See discussion on your new article. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good for you! But I think six sentences is about right for the summary in this article, no thinning needed. PRRfan (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

'alleged' is misspelled as 'allegded' in the article. I can not seem to edit this, so someone with privileges could you please do this?

 Done Looks like PRRFan got that done for you. You can't edit the page without a confirmed or auto-confirmed account because it has been semi-protected. Thanks for the report. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

over use of "alleged"

There is not an "alleged rape" case. There is a rape case. Boys are alleged to have committed rape. Not "alleged rape." The purpose of the case and the trial is to determine whether a *rape* occurred. Not an alleged rape. If convicted, the boys will be convicted of rape not alleged rape. If it cuts down on the edit wars to append that word to every mention of rape, fine, but let's have enough respect for our language to admit we're using it badly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.90 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark

Hi all, Wanted to let you know that Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark has been nominated for deletion. If any editor has constructive history, data, events, or other material to add to the article I'd appreciate it! Thanks again. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has been moved from Delete to undelete to now AfD so yes this is again being nominated for deletion, please join the conversation link on the article's notice if you wish to express yourself, thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent expansion and moving of Rape case section

The same reasons to not expand and move the Rape case section are listed above in the attempted adding of the case in the lede of the article. It's a small blip on the screen of city that has more than 200 years of history. The gateway to the West, the city of murals, those are significant sections for expansion of this article. Not a rape case that has nothing to do with the city. There are rapes and murders in every city in America. In the World. A brief mention and a link to the article is all that is deserved. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a current event that generated a lot of traffic today, so it deserved a rewrite and also be higher up in the article. Almost 2,500 hits on the city article http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Steubenville,_Ohio and about 14,000 at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case If it wasn't national and international news then it wouldn't even be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I placed a comment after the text saying that it needed to be thinned down after the news settled down. By the way, if you want to backout text, then you should backout specific text instead of everything in the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:DD2K needs to quit backing-out my other changes, like the infobox / intro / other sections, which have nothing to do with me moving text to another section. I'm waiting for you to restore my other changes! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, we do not design articles because of traffic or current events(Wikipedia is not a newspaper). This is an article in an encyclopedia about the city of Steubenville, not a tabloid. Second of all, you can make the minor edits or improvements that have nothing to do with the rape case. I have no problem with that. It's not my fault you made a major, controversial edit and then minor edits. I would not consider it a revert if you restored the minor edits that do not concern the rape case. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not my fault you either don't know how to do incremental reverts or too lazy to do it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, you want it back in, you fix it. As I see you've done. So making this edit was just an attempt to get under my skin. Didn't work, Hoss. Dave Dial (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil, please. I agree with Dave. 5 years from now, no-one outside of those connected with the case will even remember. It is part of the "We have 16 all news channels and they have to have something to talk about" phenomenon. In 5 years, if it is still a big deal, we can add content to the history section that will have some context other than "right here, right now". Until then, the main story is still linked and has all the details. Just as a note, Chicago does not talk about Richard Speck at all, but the mass murder he committed was huge news for years in Chicagoland. John from Idegon (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the Rape Case Sectiojn belongs in this article, it shouldn't it be located in some section other that "Education"? Perhaps "History"? Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur with moving it to History. PRRfan (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Something that happened after the purchase date of the oldest piece of meat in my freezer is definitely not history. We have copy in many city articles under government about the most recent election, doesn't it follow that something that happened that is newsworthy recently in the schools be under education? Just my thoughts. I would rather have it as an unheaded paragraph in history than as a separate section or subsection, but I think its former location in education was the best choice. The fact that we must debate where to put it to me is an indication that it doesn't belong in the article at all except for a listing of the article about it in a "See also" section. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps History is not the most appropriate section (maybe a new "Crime" section?) but the crime did not occur on school property nor at a school sanctioned event and even though administrators appeared to have not properly reported the incident, I think it is a real stretch to place in in "Education".Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with John from Idegon. It doesn't belong in the history section. I believe it was most proper in the School section, but it may be also proper in the Government corruption section. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wkharrisjr. That is somewhat a red herring. The crime itself is utterly not notable. Sad as it is, rape occurs every day. The notable part of the story is the school's attempt at cover-up and the subsequent involvement of the internet groups. So yes, I think education is as good a place as any. Generally, smaller cities such as this do not have enough good material to support a crime section. And as far as the government corruption section, much of that as it stands now is WP:UNDUE and should probably go away. Most of it falls more in the line of local interest stuff or trivia and does not rise to the level of encyclopedic. But that is another discussion, one I have left alone until we can get this rape story settled. John from Idegon (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Upon further reflection and re-reading all of the above debate regarding this story, I feel I must restate and reaffirm my position above (disclosure--I am Gtwfan52 and have changed my username recently). Sad as what happened is, and I feel great empathy for the victim, her family and for the families of the stupid young men that perpetrated this crime upon her, the only story here is the story. I can echo Dave Dial's comment several months ago about the patricide in 1935. This story may be defining Steubenville now, but now is not history, now is a current event. Current events do not go in paper encyclopedias, why should they go here? I feel the inclusion of anything beyond a reference to the Wikipedia article on the event is totally undue and has no place.

Perhaps, once we have the required perspective of time to determine what history truly is, perhaps a mention of the prevailing attitude of cover-up and corruption that were brought up way above may be part of the history in this town. Perhaps. It is nothing but arrogant that we (and this is not accusatory of anyone here;it is a very fallacious and prevailing attitude in our society today) think we can determine what will be history 20 minutes after it happens. Just because the talking heads talk about it does not make it history. If it is gory or lurid, they will talk about it. We have no business memorializing current events in this, an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia has no deadline, remember? Let's put our eagerness to write aside and let time tell us what history will be. It is my position that we should take the high road and link the article on the case in a "See also" section, and revisit this in a few years. BTW, I have never lived in Ohio and I may have passed through Steubenville once, not really sure. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's not a paper encyclopedia; it is far more comprehensive and far more flexible. For the foreseeable future, most people who come to this article will have learned of its existence because of the rape, if they are not indeed seeking information about the crime itself. It deserves more than a See Also (although I could see paring the text further and/or moving it). Let's leave it in and let time tell whether it should go away. PRRfan (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that it won't go away. People who edit will see it and add to it; we see that happening now. Years pass and it goes out of people's memories (perhaps) and the copy stays in the article and no-one remembers to take it out. It is kind of like proving a negative. I have seen numerous (I will look later for some examples) instances of what proved to be trivial current events going into settlement articles added by well-meaning editors that have been shown to be trivial by the passage of time. They stay until someone comes along 5 years later and removes them. If the event is truly important, someone will add it in after it has stood the test of time. With a link to the event's article in this article, people will see it and go to it if that is the info they were looking for. But by including copy in this article, we are in effect memorializing it as historic now, when we cannot possibly have the perspective to do so.

That being said, it appears we have a consensus to move it back to education. Anybody disagree? John from Idegon (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)