Talk:Isle of Wight Academy

[untitled section]

This sounds like a school admissions brochure. Please work on making the language more neutral.

incipient edit war with IP editor

an IP has been reverted twice by different editors for adding copy/paste material from school's website and, in addition, removing sourced material from article. please, IP editor, discuss it here before you do it again. we can no doubt reach some consensus on additions you want to make, but you're not going to get anywhere by reverting everyone like that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

These are hard facts about the school. They are sourced from school material, the school website, and third party sites that any fool can look up on the Internet. Why do you spend free time defacing school's (and this is not the only one) descriptions on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.188.230 (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

They're not hard facts about the school, they're promotionalism. Please read some of the guidelines about what wikipedia is and is not, e.g. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for information on what kind of material should be included in an article, and something like WP:RS for information about what kind of sources are necessary to use as references. If you work for the school or are associated with it in some way that's affecting your editing, you may have a conflict of interest, and should look at WP:COI to see how to edit in that situation. I'm also happy to answer questions if you have them, although not if you keep accusing me of defacing wikipedia pages. I haven't done that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations from the school's website

Another editor has reverted to the version of this page copied from the school's website. Please note that according to that website, www.iwacademy.com, the material being reinserted at this page is COPYRIGHTED by the school. here is the terms of use agreement from the school website. You can see right there on pages 3 and 4 of the agreement that the material on the website is copyrighted. Please, everyone, stop reinserting this material. Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that some of the material in question is also taken word-for-word from this Richmond Times-Dispatch article which, in fairness, is probably a reprint of a school press release. In any case, it's evident that it's copyrighted.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Appearance of undue weight regarding seg academy info

I'm adding a lot of detail about IWA's origins as a segregation academy and about their battles with the IRS. I would like to present a more balanced picture of the school, but it seems that that is the only thing it's notable for. There are about 3500 hits on newsbank from the 80's to 2011, and I'm not finished working through them, but they seem to be either routine coverage of football scores, graduation lists, and so forth, and stories about IWA as a seg academy. I hope someone will be able to find other material, but I haven't been able to do so yet. I just thought I'd drop a note on here prophylactically.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I originally wrote this article and there is much more to this school than the fact that it began as a segregation academy. This is true, but it is no longer true and not even the most important thing about the school. In order for a school to be accredited, which IWA is accredited by two organizations that require non-discrimination, and to maintain tax-exempt status, it is mandatory that they do not discriminate. You need to make more note of this in the article if you insist on changing it drastically from its original form. Also, there are a lot of other schools that have articles that began as segregation academies that you have not insisted on changing. I would suggest that you go alter their sites as well or leave this page alone for the sake of fairness. I am adding some additional information and we can talk about it if you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not singling out this school. I only have so much time on my hands, and I'll get to all the others eventually. Feel free to pitch in! Also, please feel free to add verifiable material to this article, but please make sure you have third party sources when they're necessary. I'm always happy to talk, just please don't remove cited, verifiable, sourced material without discussing it first. Also, please try to watch out for copyright violations. The previous versions were absolutely full of them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You certainly seem to be singling out IWA, so for fairness sake, either tackle all of them or leave this page alone. I have already started making some changes. More to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It may seem like that to you, but even if I were singling it out, I'm just improving it in line with Wikipedia standards. Do you happen to have any association with the school itself, by the way?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "segregation academy" from the lead

In line with WP:LEAD, I replaced the phrase "segregation academy" into the lead, as, based on amount of coverage in both newspapers and books, this is the single most notable quality of this school, and reflects a great deal of the content in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

what does a number demonstrate?

I removed this unsourced sentence:

This number, which has increased substantially over the past two decades, demonstrates the school's committment to a departure from its past and its embrace of all students.

because I'm convinced that a bare number cannot actually be said to demonstrate a school's committment to anything. The sentence is defensive rather than neutral in tone, and, if true, should be mentioned in a source somewhere. I wouldn't be unhappy with a statement saying that the school's minority enrollment has increased substantially, although on the other hand I think that that's fairly obvious, in that going from 1 to 3 students in the late 80s to about 40 (based on percentage claim and current enrollment) is clearly a substantial increase.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am really getting annoyed with you. Make the "substantial" change then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're getting annoyed with me. If you want edits made, you should make them, not ask me to make them. If you'd bother reading a little about how wikipedia works before editing so ferociously, you'd see that I'm just trying to negotiate appropriate material for inclusion with you. When I say I wouldn't be unhappy with it, I don't mean I want it, I mean I'll accept it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then let me make the change and don't mess with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if you make it, and I'll maybe mess with it, and then we'll talk about it? That's how it's done! I'm happy to see you're starting to understand. Try reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bennie vs. Benjamin

The source that that material came from called the headmaster "Bennie":

Meanwhile, about 425 students are enrolled for the 1994-95 school year at Isle of Wight Academy, said Headmaster Bennie Vaughan. He said enrollment has increased about 60 percent over the past five years.

I am not comfortable changing the name to Benjamin without a separate source. How do we know that Bennie is short for Benjamin? It could be short for any number of things, or an actual given name in itself. It seems to me that it's really better to stick to what published sources say. Please see WP:RS for information on this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

His name is Benjamin. He is still the headmaster. I saw it on the school website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then change it and cite it separately to there, OK? The newspaper that I got that information from called him Bennie. I have no opinion on which is used, but if a newspaper calls a person Bennie it seems dangerous to change it without a separate source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

SO you want me to change his name and cite it using the school's website? I am confused. Without sending me a link, tell me when it is acceptable to use the school's site as a ciatation and when it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't care whether you change the name or not, but if you're going to change it, you need to have a source for it, because changing it and leaving it cited to a source which explicitly calls him Bennie is misrepresentative of the source cited. It's perfectly fine to use the school's website for things like the headmaster's name. You can find the details at WP:SELFPUB.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

So what would not be acceptable to cite from the school's site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, unduly self serving material, like that thing below that you cited to privateschools.com but which is really from the school's website? Is it really so hard to understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I just want to know who appointed you the arbiter of this page on behalf of Wikipedia. I don't have all day to monitor changes made to this page like you evidently do. The minute a change is made that you don't like, you take it out. I can't do that as I am not at a computer 24/7. And I believe that the school's mission statement is an important piece of what the school is about. But if you don't, I guess that is how things will be because, again, I don't have the hours upon hours in the day to monitor this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Friend, every time you hit save on one of these pages, you donate the text you wrote to the entire world. You should read the agreement there. No one appointed me, we are all equals here. It's as much my article as it is your article as it is anyone's article. You could try reading up on what Wikipedia's about. You don't have to worry about watching it 24/7, I'm certainly willing to wait and discuss. I hope you'll continue to do the same.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I know what Wikipedia is about. We are not all equals because not all of us are on the computer all day long. But you seem to be on here all day long and will change things without talking about it for no good reason. I am willing to work with you, but you have to stop being so arbitrary with what you insert/delete based on what you feel. Be considerate of others too.JOEWM2004 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just working from newspapers here, ok? I insert material that gets printed in newspapers. That's my standard. I remove stuff that's not cited to reliable sources or that's copy/pasted from the school's website in violation of the terms of use of that very website. Did you even notice how I put a nice copy of the school's logo in the infobox with the proper permissions after the one you put in got deleted? I'm really not out to destroy this article, I'm trying to make it encyclopedic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of copyright violating material

I took this:

The philosophy of Isle of Wight Academy is to accept students of average or above average ability and develop them to their fullest potential by providing a quality program, which will build the student mentally, physically, and spiritually. The school emphasizes the honor, integrity, social development, and citizenship of the student.<:ref>"Privateschool Review". Retrieved 26 November 2011.</ref>

as it is copy/paste and is not even identified as a quotation. This is a violation of the website's copyright, as well as plagiarism. Please take a minute to read Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Plagiarism to avoid this in the future.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, what you did with this material now would be OK in general. The problem is that the material is not really from privateschools.com privateschoolreview.com, it's from IWA's actual website, and was put on privateschools.com privateschoolreview.com by the school, probably. It seems to me that a school's mission statement is reasonable to include in its article, but I can't tell from the school's website if this is a mission statement or not. If it is, I would prefer that we identify it as such. If it's the school's description of itself, I'm a little dubious about whether the school's website counts as a reliable source. I will certainly leave it alone for a while to think about it, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

School's current mission

This sentence:

The school's current mission is to enroll students regardless of race, color, ethnic, national, or religious origin, as required by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools standards and accreditation process.<:ref>"SACS/AdvancEd Accreditation Standards". SACS/AdvancEd. Retrieved 26 November 2011.</ref>

does not seem to be supported by the source it's cited to. Is there some kind of nondiscrimination statement in that SACS document that I missed? The nearest thing that I can see is the requirement that accredited schools follow the law, but it is not actually against the law for private schools to discriminate in admissions. Also, if this clause is what's meant to support the statement cited to it, it seems to me to be some kind of synthesis, and should be removed (see WP:SYNTH). Perhaps it would be best to change the statement so that it doesn't say that SACS requires nondiscrimination, or else to find an explicit statement by SACS that they require nondiscrimination.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a requirement, but I put in the wrong document. Fixing now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfecto, thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to Benjamin

Where on the school's website did you see that he was still the headmaster? I can't find it in there anywhere. That kind of thing usually goes in the infobox, but I don't want to put it in until we know the actual name. Can you link to it somewhere?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you look under Faculty and Staff? http://www.iwacademy.com/faculty--staff.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. How did you find that? Is it linked to anywhere on the publically facing website? I just can't find it from there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How many students?

The school's website says about 530, whereas this says 647. I would like to change it to the number from the school's website and cite it to there. Any objections?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's old info. Here are the 2011 stats: http://www.iwacademy.com/school-profile.htmlJOEWM2004 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how do you know that one is old and the other is new? They're both on the school's website, and is that profile you linked to available through the publically facing index? I can't see how to get to it from there. What makes one figure more reliable than the other?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It has to be out of date (something that is not updated when the new site went up). The old one used to be at iwachargers.homestead.com (it is still listed on a few sites around the web). Some stuff must not have gotten updated when they switched over. All other sites (privateschool review, greatschools, etc.) all say 650 or so.05:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs)

Ah, never mind. I just forgot to turn javascript on. Silly IWA; they ought to fix their website to detect whether a browser has scripts turned off or not. Maybe you could let them know?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous....

I don't know why in the world you feel the need to "control" this page. You won't let anyone come to any sort of consesus about what should be on this page because you revert it back when other people who have lives are off living theirs. The main thing about this school is the education is provides. Its history is interesting, but that should be an integrated section of the overall article under history. Why don't you let me add what I want and then you go in and fix it up instead of just reverting the whole thing back and throw out the fact that I am not playing by the rules. If you are such a Wikipedia genius, then HELP fix the page. Help come to a consensus on what should be included instead fo just destroying what someone else does. This is supposed to be a collaboration; what you are doing is not that.JOEWM2004 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice that I asked for input over half a year ago and you and the rest of the world were silent about it? Anyway, I've opened a request for comments below, which ought to draw more people into the discussion. As I've stated many times I'm happy to discuss anything.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC regarding mention of segregation academy in lead paragraph, parallel version of history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

The first issue I'd like to solicit comments on is whether this sentence belongs in the lead: It was founded in 1967 as a segregation academy. You'll see I asked for discussion last year but got no response. Today User:JOEWM2004 resumed an old edit war over the issue. As far as I can see, the only reason this school has ever been mentioned in a reliable source is because it was founded as a segregation academy. Thus it does not seem like undue weight to put it in the lead. The second issue has to do with these two paragraphs, which User:JOEWM2004 put into the history section as can be seen in this diff here: School History<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iwacademy.com/about-iwa.html}}</ref> Isle of Wight Academy began operation in the fall of 1967. It openend in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, which was formerly part of the county school system. It was open for one year until tragedy struck in the fall of 1968. A fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which remains the only building standing on the campus from the original school structure). Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium. During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease, thanks in large part to the economic difficulties of the period. The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment now stands at approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy. As you can see, this is basically a whitewashed version of the reliably sourced history which was previously in the article. It is sourced only to the school's website. Obviously it's not desirable to have two parallel versions of the school's history side by side in the article. I prefer the old version, in which every claim is reliably sourced. I wonder what others think.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC) You are basically trying to boil an entire institution down to its past actions. In the lead off to the Constitution, does it say that it was a document that overwhelmingly supported the institution of slavery? No. Why? Because it has evolved just like the school. The school is valuable because it serves a community. Its past as a segregation academy should be incorporated, but in its own section under history that deals with that issue only. The way that you are constantly re-writing this article makes it appear that this is only what the school is about, which could not be further from the truth. If you want, you can incorporate the two into one history, but that is work that you will have to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, if it is such a huge part of the school's history, a special section in its history would make it stand out better.JOEWM2004 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC) But you didn't put it in a separate section, you put a parallel and white-washed history next to a genuine history. The school's website is appropriate for information like who the headmaster is and what the enrollment is. It is absolutely not a reliable source for the history of the school. Please see WP:SELFSOURCE for why this is. I do think that the one sentence about the former purpose of the school's building is factual enough to be sourced from the school's website, but of all the information you've put into the history section from the school's website, that's the only thing I think ought to stay. The other issue is the segregation academy statement in the lead. The ONLY thing that any sources other than the school's website mention about this school is that it was founded as a seg academy. That's the only thing. Please look at WP:MOSINTRO to see what I'm talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Additionally, since you want to add that material into the school history section, you should read WP:BURDEN to see that you have to find reliable sources for it, other than the school website, which is, as I said, not a reliable source for that material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC) You are the one who substantially altered the page from what I originally composed years ago, so I believe the burden falls on you. As far as the segregation academy lead, we had a nice discussion months ago about what should be included. You took it out of the lead. Months later, after I guess you figured I stopped looking, you re-inserted it. That is not collaboration. It is an interesting part of the school's history, but not the overarching purpose of the school today. See previous Constitution comments.JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Are you kidding? Where did I take it out of the lead? Where did I agree to take it out? Provide a diff. I asked for comments on whether it belonged in there and no one ever answered. The constitution is more than irrelevant here. It is not a wikipedia article, it doesn't have a lead but a preamble, and it's a complete red herring. And burdens apply to people who want to add unsourced material. Everything I've put in is sourced to a third party reliable source, which meets the burden already. Everything you want to put in is sourced to the school's website in a way which is not supported by WP:SELFSOURCE, so the burden falls on you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC) You made the change on July 10 with this description: put seg academy back into lead, dewikified newly second mention, removed scare quotes. I like the new lay-out and think that it should stay that way. And since none of your friends chimed in any differently after you put up the tattle warning, I don't think you have a lot of support. For the last time, there is a whole section on the school's past as a segregation academy, but that is not the school's mission today. The way you are modifying it is quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC) You're saying that my putting it in is agreeing to take it out? How does that work? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I will try this one more time. We callaborated on the article about a year ago and got it to a place that I was ok with. Then a month ago, you re-insert something that we had taken out in working together. In the interest of compromise, let's keep the article as is.JOEWM2004 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC) You're confused. I never agreed to take it out. Leaving it as it is is not a compromise. Do you have any policy based arguments for taking seg academy out of the lead? Let's just talk about that issue first, OK? We can get to the history section later. Please try to base your arguments on policies, not on dubious comparisons to the constitution and so forth, ok?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Well, you might not have agreed by your way of thinking, but you DID take it out only to re-insert it when no one was looking. The school is not a segregation academy today, therefore it should be take out of the lead. It is an interesting historical note that is included in the article, but putting it in the lead is misleading that the school follows those practices to this day.JOEWM2004 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Show me the diff where I took it out if you're going to keep claiming that I did. Read WP:LEAD and base your argument on that. The fact that it's no longer a seg academy has nothing to do with what goes in the lead. The fact that the only reason that it's ever written about in reliable sources is because it began as a seg academy shows that the fact does belong in the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Proposal 1 I propose that the lead paragraph read: Isle of Wight Academy (IWA) is an private non-profit day school located in Isle of Wight County, Virginia. It was founded in 1967 as a segregation academy. The school has students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade and is non-sectarian and coeducational. support 1. The only reason that this school is ever mentioned in reliable sources is because it was founded as a segregation academy. WP:LEAD states: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Thus its origin as a seg academy ought to be mentioned.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC) This comment is written in OPPOSITION to the above argument. Your argument that it should be included in the lead doesn't hold water when other schools that started off for the same reason that you yourself have edited (see Fuqua School and Blessed Sacrament-Huguenot) do not have the lead altered by you to mention segregation academieis. Seriously, what do you have against this school? You insult everyone ever associated with it by painting it with such a broad brush.JOEWM2004 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC) You're not going to convince many people with that kind of argument. Edit those articles yourself if you think they need it. In the case of this school, the fact that it started as a segregation academy needs to be in the lead paragraph because that is the only reason it is ever mentioned in reliable sources except for its football program now and then. You keep saying it's mentioned for all kinds of other things too, but you've yet to come up with a single source. Every reliable source in this article except for the SACS document was added by me, (and that's probably actually unusable since it's a primary source and doesn't actually discuss the school, although I've declined to push that point in the interest of compromise). I looked everywhere for anything that anyone cares about regarding this school. There's nothing but segregation and football. I would love it if you could prove me wrong with sources rather than unsupported assertions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC) It is a fairness and consistency thing. You don't have any credibility for insisting on putting it in the lead when you have not done it consistently to other schools in the same boat that you have edited. Again, you clearly have some sort of prejudice against the school. You constantly stalk this page and are completely unfair in your edits. As far as other evidence goes, I don't have access to newspaper archive searches like you clearly do. If I did, I could produce a lot of what you are asking for. Just like you could if you did the same if you were in any way trying to produce a fair article. Since you are such an expert, how do I put a cute little tag that reports you for that?JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 2. Yeah, seems like it was this school's main reason for existing. "Segregation academy" sounds wrong, though; shouldn't it be "segregated academy"? It was a segregated school, not a school that taught people how to segregate.—Chowbok ☠ 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC) It's the technical term; see segregation academy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3. I would suggest to wikilink segregation academies and clarify the present day situation. BTW, as "wight" and "white" are homophones, is the "Isle of Wight" a play on the concept of segregation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I doubt it; That's the name of the County in VA that the school's in, and that's named after some place in England that was called that before racism was on the radar, but it's an easy conclusion to jump to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Still this is an interesting issue. I would love to dig some statements on this topic, but unfortunately I have no access to the local sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Let me try again since I am a big meanie. The school is a regional school located in Isle of Wight County. The county was founded as one of the original eight shires in Virginia and was named after the Isle of Wight off the coast of England, which is where some of its settlers were from. To imply something else is a little insulting.JOEWM2004 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC) oppose See below.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)— JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) The history of the school is very interesting, but to put "segregation academy" into the lead probably gives the casual reader the wrong impression. I like the dichotomized version of the history. The reader can come to their own conclusions then.SmithfieldPride (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Alternate account of JOEWM2004, per SPI. Amalthea 07:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Um, that is not me. I showed the ridiculous arguments going on here to some friends and one of them decided to write something up. He is a little ticked that his comment was deleted because someone didn't possibly think that anyone else would go against "Alf." Maybe you talk to me instead of snitching to the Wikipedia powers that be every time you don't like or agree with something? Just a thought.JOEWM2004 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC) JOE, we've been talking for almost a year now. Obviously we're not going to change one another's minds on these two issues at this point. The thing to do then is have a RFC, which is what we're doing. If your "friend" was blocked unjustly, take it up with the administrator who did it somewhere else than on this talk page, which is for discussion of the article itself, OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I'm so sorry. I just don't have the time to spend learning all of the neat little things to try to trip someone up in trying to maintain an article that they wrote from constant unwanted or unnecessary changes from others. I am still learning, ok?JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Another point that I have just researched: I would argue that it should be taken out of the lead based on previous edits of Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. In other articles about "segregation academies" that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has also edited, he has not insisted that the words segregation academy be placed in the lead. A specific example would be that of Fuqua School, which is an integral part of the segregation academy narrative becuase it was actually the catalyst for closing down the entire Prince Edward County school system. He has edited there but has not insisted to include the lead there. Also, he has contributed to the page about Blessed Sacrament-Huguenot, which is another very interesting case because of the irony of the school's name alone. He did not insist on putting it in the lead there either. Both are great articles and really add to the history; however, neither school is that today, so putting it in the lead is unnecessary and misleading. I cite precedent and lack of consistency as reason alone to keep the article as is currently.JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Does WP:lead help here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose I see that you have quoted from WP:lead above: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. I would take 'prominent controversies' to refer to current controversies rather that historical facts which are controversial. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, although the section of WP:LEAD I was relying on was the part about explaining what makes the subject notable. Most of the coverage that this school has received has to do with its founding as a seg academy, so it seems to me that that's a huge part of what makes it notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Proposal 2 I propose that the newly bifurcated history section be merged into a single section without repetitions and different versions of the same material. I propose that this be done by removing the current "history" section, renaming the seg academy history section back to "history," and then conducting a discussion on the talk page sentence by disputed sentence, keeping in mind WP:SELFSOURCE. support — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC) - I think the current format, with 'History' and 'School History in Relation to Segregation Academies' is crazy. You need to state all the facts in one section in a clear and neutral way. Maybe there could be sub-sections to separate different issues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I could live with that. Maybe 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.? Most of what is being argued here is in the past, not the present.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) That may be a way forward then. We cannot hide the past but we must also show the present and recent history fairly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Of course this is fine with me, too. The problem I've had for almost a year now is the difficulty of finding sources. The essential question is how much self-sourced history belongs in the section. Most of what's sourced to the academy website now is either unverifiable elsewhere or is a white-washed version of things that are already in the other part (e.g. the financial difficulties are only reported in independent sources in relation to the fact that the school started as a seg academy). Nevertheless, perhaps someone could suggest a version of the history section in another section of this talk page?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC) If you somehow know that the website version of things is inaccurate does that not mean that there must be some sources? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I don't believe that I've ever said that I "somehow know that the website version" is inaccurate. The problem is that it's whitewashed. The second paragraph of the current history section is whitewashed because it leaves out every detail of why the school was in financial difficulty. The sources for this are in the "segregation academy" section, in the paragraph that begins "The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985". I have no problem with sourcing the facts in the first paragraph to the school website, although some of the language needs to be toned down for neutrality, e.g. "Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) oppose I propose leaving it as is. What you propose makes the school look like it continues to be a segregation academy. For you to state that as the only notable thing is frankly insulting to the school. There are a ton of news articles about the school out there (it is called Google) that have nothing to do with segregation. It is an interesting historical footnote and should have its own section, but has no place in the lead. And if so, why don't you fill your time locating every so-called segregation academy's Wikipedia page and inserting that into their lead. I see you have done that with two others, but not all of them. What is your problem with this school anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC) — JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Agreement?

Is there now agreement to combine the two history sections into a single section, possibly with subsections? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we also agree?

Can we also agree that the history section should not be used as a means of criticising the academy as it currently is, unless such criticism is supported by current reliable sources? (I hope it is clear what I mean). Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so clear what you mean. What in there is a criticism of the school? What in there that you think is "currently" a criticism is not supported by reliable sources?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Giving undue weight to the school's bad history might be considered to be unfairly harming its current reputation. All I am suggesting is that we make sure that this does not happen when we combine the two history sections. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, although it's hard to see how it's undue weight given the coverage of the school in reliable sources. I raised this question in November 2011 without getting much response: Talk:Isle_of_Wight_Academy#Appearance_of_undue_weight_regarding_seg_academy_info. The problem is sourcing. The school is not really mentioned in current reliable sources except as a former seg academy. I had thought that JOEWM and I negotiated the inclusion of the "Mission" section as a partial solution to this problem.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about sources that refer to the current academy or historical sources. It would be undue weight to give too much prominenece to what is said about the school historically. I have suggested a starting sentence below to see if theree is an understanding now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There don't seem to be sources that refer to the current academy is the main problem. Can you find some?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There are the Academy sources that you mentioned. These can be considered reliable for purely factual data but they are not good for opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, so the question arises as to whether it's really undue weight to concentrate on the school's history as a seg academy, that being the only thing that independent sources discuss about it. And they have discussed that issue over decades, which seems to say that it's not undue to discuss mostly that in the history section. The school's website supports the statement that it was started in the building of the old elementary school. Anything else?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do independent sources still discuss the schools history as an seg academy? Is so then we should add something about that. If the sources you refer to are from the segregation era the it would IMO be undue weight to give them prominence. How about my suggestion below? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is *all* that current independent sources discuss about the school. The sources cited in the article on the segregation issue range from the 1980s through 2004. Sources from the segregation era don't discuss the issue at all. The way that segregation was not discussed post Brown v. Board until the 1980s is sometimes called The Quiet Game. It's part of what makes it so hard to write the histories of these schools. Everyone knew what they were for but no one said it out loud, let alone in print. Anyway, I think that a range of sources from over 20 years beginning 20 years after the founding of the school makes a reasonable case for it not being undue weight to give the issue prominence. I invite you to check for yourself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The historical facts are all covered in the link to segregation academy. You say there are no sources since 2004 criticising the school. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested start to new 'History' section

The Isle of Wight Academy started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, as a segregation academy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say without seeing at least a paragraph.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

How about?

The Isle of Wight Academy started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, as a segregation academy. It was open for one year until, in the fall of 1968, a fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which remains the only building standing on the campus from the original school structure). Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium.

The academy was one of many such schools which lost tax-exempt status in the early 1970s because of racially discriminatory admissions policies.<:ref name="Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ...">Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ... U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1972. p. 647. Retrieved 20 September 2011.</ref> During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease, thanks in large part to the economic difficulties of the period.

After briefly regaining regained its tax-exempt status in 1985 <:ref name=prince>Gordon, Richard E. (April 16, 1986). "Prince Edward Academy Given Tax Exempt Status". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> <:ref name=despite />it permanently regained it June 1987.<:ref name=despite>Ebeling, Ashlea (November 26, 1989). "Despite Its Changed Image, Academy Draws Few Blacks". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> In 1988, IWA enrolled three Black students out of 300, and in 1989 one.<:ref name=despite /> Headmaster Don Deaton told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that "We would like to have more black students but it's hard to attract them."<:ref name=despite /><:ref name=prince />

The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment now stands at approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy.<:ref>"About IWA". Retrieved 8 August 2012.</ref> Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The refs were cut-and-pasted from the original. It might be best to remove them completely to show the proposed text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the dates and provenances of the sources are important to the discussion I'd prefer to leave them in there so we can see them if that's OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposal with reasoning

1. Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium. I don't think that this is appropriate to source to the school. Also it's phrased promotionally.

So how about, With funding from the local community IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is fine with me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2. During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease, thanks in large part to the economic difficulties of the period. This is absolutely inappropriate to source to the school. Who knows why enrollment began to decrease? The school has a COI when it comes to explaining the decrease. If there's no third party source for the reason I think it should be left unmentioned. It's OK to source the *fact* that the enrollment decreased to the school.

Agreed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

3. The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Since we don't know that it was "fortune" that caused the enrollment to drop, we don't know that it was a "reversal of fortune" that made it increase. Also this sounds quite promotional.

I think that is a minor quibble about word choice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My main objection is to the tone, rather than the word choice.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is just a matter of writing style. You may not have used those words but I do not see any hidden agendas in it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

4. I don't want to say that it permanently regained its tax exempt status. Tax exempt status is reviewed regularly and is *always* conditional.

It would be good to find a concise way of saying 'regained its tax exempt status that it has retained to the present day'.

Indeed it would.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

How about 'finally regained'? Martin Hogbin (talk)

5. Why not mention the IRS investigation in the 1980s? If you look at newsbank, proquest, or something similar, you'll see that this was huge news in Virginia at the time. There was story after story in the Richmond papers about this.

I think that gives undue weight to events of 30 odd years ago. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this? I've read WP:UNDUE over and over and I can't see any reason to exclude it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See my comments below. Let us see what other editors think. Maybe we could add something more general ,like, 'after a period of negotiation with the IRS'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In general I think that your version leaves out a lot of important and reliably sourced material, including the effect of the geography of the area on the school's survival (being in tobacco rather than corn country). How about this:

If others think this is relevant to the continued existence of the school then we should add something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Isle of Wight Academy opened its doors in the fall of 1967 as a segregation academy, a school opened as part of the "massive resistance" strategy that opposed racial integration of public schools.<:ref>"With Resistance". Daily Press. May 9, 2004. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> IWA started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School. It was open for one year until, in the fall of 1968, a fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which is the only remaining original building on campus). IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium.<:ref name=aboutiwa/>

It was one of many such schools which lost tax-exempt status in the early 1970s because of racially discriminatory admissions policies.<:ref name="Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ...">Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ... U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1972. p. 647. Retrieved 20 September 2011.</ref> The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985.<:ref name=prince>Gordon, Richard E. (April 16, 1986). "Prince Edward Academy Given Tax Exempt Status". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> However, in February 1986 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was opening an investigation to determine whether the IWA and two other Virginia private schools had actually abandoned these policies.<:ref name=demo>"Democrat Says IRS Probing Three Schools". Richmond Times-Dispatch: B1. February 26, 1986. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> William Hooper, IWA headmaster at that time, stated that although none of the school's 400 students were Black, the school was open to anyone.<:ref name=demo /> In April 1986 the IRS announced that both IWA and the Amelia Academy would have their tax exemption revoked.<:ref name=prince /> Hooper stated: "We just have not had a black to apply or a minority to apply. I don't know what we can do at this point. I hope we'll get some applications so we can get this thing behind us. Evidently that's what it's going to take, and we'd be happy to get some tomorrow."<:ref name=prince />

Many of the segregation academies which lost their tax exemptions experienced a sharp drop in donations. Some of them were forced out of business by the loss in income, but the Isle of Wight academy managed to survive. Bennie Vaughan, headmaster at IWA during the 1994-95 school year, attributed the school's survival to "innovative programs, enlightened leadership, extended bus routes and 'generous' contributions."<:ref name=iw>Paust, Matthew (August 28, 1994). "IW School Has Always Thrived: Crop Money Key to Success?". Daily Press. Retrieved November 25, 2011.</ref> G. Meri Longest, former president of the board of directors of one of the schools that ended up closing due to IRS actions, explained that the difference was that many donors to IWA were local farmers who were able to grow valuable cash crops such as tobacco, peanuts, and cotton. According to Longest, schools in less favorable locations, such as Longest's York Academy, were dependent on corn farmers, who generate much less money per acre, and so were unable to support their local private schools as generously.<:ref name=iw />

Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987.<:ref name=despite>Ebeling, Ashlea (November 26, 1989). "Despite Its Changed Image, Academy Draws Few Blacks". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> In 1988, IWA enrolled three Black students out of 300, and in 1989 one.<:ref name=despite /> Headmaster Don Deaton told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that "We would like to have more black students but it's hard to attract them."<:ref name=despite /> In the 1990s enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment in 2012 was approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy.<:ref name=aboutiwa>"About IWA". Retrieved 8 August 2012.</ref>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be pretty sure that that will not be accepted by other editors here. You have to give some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We can leave that to whoever closes the RFC to decide if we can't agree by then. So far I haven't seen any policy based and explained objections to this level of detail about the school's past as a seg academy. There are about 950 articles in newsbank that mention this school. Above you see quoted every single one of them that doesn't involve sports scores, directory information, or passing mentions (except for their LEGO team in 2007, but I couldn't find anything about that to put in).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be much better to come to a consensus with other editors here. That will involve concessions from you and the others. The job of closing admins is not to arbitrate on content or to provide definitive interpretations of WP policy but simply to enforce the consensus reached by existing editors.

WP:undue says:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

In this case it may be true that the subject of IRS investigation was well reported by reliable sources but that was in the 1980's. I think it is undue weight give more detail on historical events than current ones even though we may have more good sources for historical events, especially as the historical events are all negative ones.

I suggest that we wait and see what other editors think of my compromise suggestion and then try to work towards a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly what we'll have to do, but there actually are no current events about this school mentioned in reliable sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have to do that if we are to reach a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with Martin

I think that Martin has some great points for coming to a compromise, which is all I have ever wanted. Martin, you should know that Alf will not allow this to happen. He clearly has some sort of bias against the school. If you look at other schools that began under similar circumstances that Alf has edited, he is not insisting on the same undue weight being assigned in the lead or elsewhere. I believe that he clearly has some sort of agenda here; however, I can't prove it.

Also, I wish I had access to Newsbank, but I don't. I refuse to believe that there are no relevant articles from recent years. This gives our friend Alf an almost unfair advantage in this fight because he can "source" things and we can't.

I like your version of the school's history and agree with the opposition to putting the segregation bit in the lead. It is purposefully misleading and paints the school in an innacurate light in the present day. Thank you for getting involved in this article and for helping to engender a spirit of compromise.JOEWM2004 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Joe, believe it or not, I would love it if you could find some more information from reliable sources to put into this article. I have looked long and hard and there doesn't seem to me to be any. That doesn't mean that there isn't any, though. I get newsbank for free at my local public library, along with all the other databases I've used while trying to discover information for this article. Your local library probably has plenty of databases available for free too. You could look into it and maybe you'll be able to find some more information for the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Below is a suggested 'History' section amended to take account of some of Alf's objection:

The Isle of Wight Academy started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, as a segregation academy. It was open for one year until, in the fall of 1968, a fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which remains the only building standing on the campus from the original school structure). With funding from the school community, the academy was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium.

The academy was one of many such schools which lost tax-exempt status in the early 1970s because of racially discriminatory admissions policies. During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease.

After briefly regaining regained its tax-exempt status in 1985 it finally regained it June 1987 In 1988, The school enrolled three Black students out of 300, and in 1989 one. Headmaster Don Deaton told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that "We would like to have more black students but it's hard to attract them."

The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment now stands at approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy.

Is this close to a consensus? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it violates WP:UNDUE. I don't think that we're going to be able to come to an agreement by trading versions until we can maybe clarify to one another what our differing interpretations of that policy are, since we both seem to be basing our arguments on the same policy but coming to quite different conclusions. I've started a section for this below.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What are we giving undue weight to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We're failing to give due weight to the school's history as a segregation academy and its problems with the IRS. These two issues constitue 100% of the coverage in reliable sources apart from aspects of the school for which self-sourcing is appropriate. By leaving out details of those issues we are giving undue weight to the self-sourceable aspects of the story.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The school was a seg academy and it did have problems with the IRS and that is what we say. Regarding the self-sourced material we have limited that to uncontroversial facts.

Unless we have any reliable sources that comment further on the situation, I think that we should let the facts speak for themselves. We have a link to segregation academy so readers can see exactly what that was so we do not need to say more unless there was something unusual about IWA that made it different from other SAs. The IRS problems relate to that same fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But how much we say about it should be controlled by how much coverage there is of it in reliable sources, right? IWA seems to have been important in the tax fight since there's a lot more discussion of it in the papers than there is for most comparable seg academies.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no policy I am aware of that says if something gets lots of coverage in sources we must write more about it.

It seems to me that the viewpoint that you wish to give weight to is that the IWA is a bad place in some way. Writing more on the bad aspects of the academy is giving undue weight to that viewpoint. To give that viewpoint more weight we would need a source which says the academy is a bad place.

Finally, please bear in mind that I am trying to help you and other editors to reach a consensus that you have so far failed to reach. You wanted the two history sections combined and we have done that. You now need to give a little of we are to reach a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it seems to you that I'm trying to make the IWA appear bad in some way. I have no intention of doing that. If you review the history of the article, you'll see that I've cleaned up the article in various ways, e.g. adding the logo to the infobox, that have been uncontroversial. I understand that you're trying to help editors reach consensus, but, as you may have noticed, there are only the two of us participating in this conversation. I don't see how it's going to be helpful for the article if I keep making concessions that seem to me to harm the article until JOEWM is happy with it. He doesn't seem so willing to discuss the content, although he did last year when we worked out the mission statement section and some other parts of the article that I can't remember right now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I have a job and life and cannot devote 100% of my day to this article and the unnecessary revision thereof. I have tried to compromise with Alf REPEATEDLY only for him to come back months later and make changes to what we had worked out. He has an agenda to give the school as it currently is a bad reputation. All of that is historical and no longer has anything to do with the school and its mission. I am ok with creating a unified history. I am not ok with including past information in the lead that is misleading and unfair. Again, you have zero credibility on this issue because you have not fairly applied your principles to other articles, indicating that you do in fact have a hidden negative agenda. If anyone knows how to flag this Alf guy for that and tattle to the Wikipedia powers that be, please help and do so.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Alf has not edited the article since we started discussing it. What are your thoughts on the subjects below.

Some points to discuss

Geography and survival

What should we say about the effect of the geography of the area on the school's survival (being in tobacco rather than corn country)?

I don't see what's wrong with the paragraph that's in there now about this. Many of the schools which lost tax exemptions folded, but IWA did not. The fact that this was due to the crops grown in the area seems relevant to me. I don't even see why anyone objects to this paragraph as it doesn't say anything that seems remotely perceivable as negative and it was the subject of a whole newspaper article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Is everyone else happy with that.

Why would we include it at all? You are sourcing all of your material from one article that was sourced from a disgruntled former supporter of a school that closed down. How is that either verifiable or useful?JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I see now why this might be contentious. I suggest two choices. Either we just state the bare facts:

The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school with enrollment beginning a steady increase.

Or we give a balanced explanation, based on the one source. Maybe something like:

The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Funding increased due to the restoration of tax-exempt status, a new fund raising program, and the high profitability of farming in the area. Enrollment also began a steady increase with more programs being offered to the growing student body. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to attribute the reasons for the reversal of fortune to the school's headmaster. How about

Many of the segregation academies which lost their tax exemptions experienced a sharp drop in donations. Some of them were forced out of business by the loss in income, but the Isle of Wight academy managed to survive, and the early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Bennie Vaughan, headmaster at IWA during the 1994-95 school year, attributed the school's survival to "innovative programs, enlightened leadership, extended bus routes and 'generous' contributions."[6]

We leave out the stuff from the disgruntled guy and also don't state his opinion on the high profitability of farming being relevant as a fact. Since there's no undisputed source for the farming angle I'm OK with omitting it altogether. I believe that it's important to say that the list of factors was Vaughn's opinion, though, because that material is not appropriately sourceable to the school's website and this way we can source it to Vaughan through a reliable source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This would be OK, The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Bennie Vaughan, headmaster at IWA during the 1994-95 school year, attributed the school's survival to "innovative programs, enlightened leadership, extended bus routes and 'generous' contributions."[6]

The rest is about SAs in general. It is quite obvious that the IWA survived. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not so obvious and thus not needing explanation that the journalist who who wrote the article didn't see fit to discuss it in the context of the IWA. Without these two sentences there's no transition between paragraphs. Also, parallel to what you argued above, the fact that that IWA survived when others didn't is a reason for including a statement that it did survive. If it's obvious that it survived, it's also obvious that there were reasons why it survived. Why state them as well, then? I wouldn't argue for discussing SAs in general if there weren't sources which discussed them in the context of the IWA in order to contextualize information about the IWA itself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Tax exempt-status

Should we say more about the IRS and the schools tax exempt status? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For both of these issues, perhaps you can explain why you think that the parts of the current version which you propose to leave out ought to be left out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Because they serve no encyclopedic purpose. Now you say what you would like to add, and why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How so do they serve no encyclopedic purpose? The IWA was one of only three of these schools that the IRS decided to investigate in 1986 after giving back tax exempt status. Your version doesn't mention this. Is it not also reasonable to include the then-headmaster's response to this as well?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK so now we have a reason to mention the re-removal of tax-exempt status because IWA was one of only three schools to which that happened. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was one of three schools which got re-investigated. It was one of only two to lose the status. That seems worth mentioning as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk about losing tax-exempt status but not regaining it. How do you propose to incorporate that? Surely, you don't want to overlook the historic nature of the school overcoming its battles with the IRS. It is all tied in with the 1992 accreditation by SACS and there is already an article sourced in previous versions about that.JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As of now the article states: Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987. As was discussed above, I agree that it would be good to make it clear that IWA retains its tax exempt status to the present day. I would be fine with sourcing the current tax exempt status to IWA published materials as it would be a pure statement of fact about the organization. I can't find a statement to that effect on the IWA website, though. Can anyone? How does Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987 and retains it to the present day sound? I don't actually even think we need a source for this last fact since the Virginia Independent Schools Association requires 501(c)3 status for membership. I think that citing the fact to VISA rules would violate WP:SYNTHESIS, however. The fact that VISA requires this can be seen from the MANUAL FOR SCHOOL EVALUATION 2011 EDTITION.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant or not. The IWA doesn't seem to appear on the IRS listing of tax-exempt organizations. The IRS database is searchable here although I can't figure out how to link directly to the search. According to the IWA website, the IWA is run by the Isle of Wight Educational Foundation [1]. According to the IRS the IWEF lost its tax exemption in 2010: [2]. That website also says that "The information is not necessarily current as of today's date. Nor does this automatic revocation necessarily reflect the organization's tax-exempt or non-exempt status. The organization may have applied to the IRS for recognition of exemption and been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt after its effective date of automatic revocation. To check whether an organization is currently recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt, call Customer Account Services at (877) 829-5500 (toll-free number)." I don't think a phone call to the IRS is citeable as a source, and I don't see how else to verify this at this point.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But according to these people they are tax exempt, and this was updated in August 2012: [3]. Anyway, I'm still fine with this: Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987 and retains it to the present day even without a source. There's no coverage of the IWEF losing its status in reliable secondary sources, so clearly it would be best to leave it out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The school is tax exempt or it wouldn't be accredited by either VISA or SACS.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

JOEWM2004, no one disputes this. What do you think of the proposed addition to the sentence on tax-exempt status making it clear that it not only regained it in 1987 as the article now states, but that it continues to have it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So why not 'finally regained its tax exempt status'? I thing the meaning is clear and it is less long winded. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it not seem relevant to put in the year it regained it? Maybe I don't understand what sentence you're actually proposing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I meant something like, Isle of Wight Academy finally regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly fine with me. Do you want to put a proposed paragraph in a new section that reflects your sense of where we are? Or is it too early for that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My plan was to replace the two history sections with one combined section with a singe section (which you proposed) with the wording as my 'Proposed compromise section (which Joe supports) but with amendments to deal with your objections to my proposal as discussed above. We could replace the two history sections with my proposal with the agreed wording above, which deals with one of your objections pending discussion and resolution of the 'Geography and survival' issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Shall we do that then, pending further discussion? I think it is a good move towards an acceptable compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble piecing together what that would look like. Would you mind pasting a proposed complete version in a new section so I can see what you mean?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I think we have this, which is pretty much as before but, as I understand it you have no complaint about the IRS issues:

The Isle of Wight Academy started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, as a segregation academy. It was open for one year until, in the fall of 1968, a fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which remains the only building standing on the campus from the original school structure). With funding from the school community, the academy was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium.

The academy was one of many such schools which lost tax-exempt status in the early 1970s because of racially discriminatory admissions policies. During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease.

After briefly regaining regained its tax-exempt status in 1985 it finally regained it June 1987. In 1988, The school enrolled three Black students out of 300, and in 1989 one. Headmaster Don Deaton told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that "We would like to have more black students but it's hard to attract them."

The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment now stands at approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I can live this with. I think that it needs to be implicitly mentioned that the school no longer discriminates if so much weight is going to be given to its past as a segregation academy. How can we achieve that?JOEWM2004 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the balance is now about right. No doubt Alf will think in unfairly favours the school. I would think that most readers will assume that the academy no longer discriminates since it could not get away with doing this today. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it's reasonable to assume that my opinions on this article have to do with what "favours" or does not "favour" the school. I have no interest whatsoever in this school other than that its article on wikipedia be complete and accurate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sounds good to me.JOEWM2004 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As Alf has made no adverse comment I am going to put this into the article. That does not mean we cannot change it but, as we have a good compromise, we should discuss any changes before they are made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been off wiki for a while until this morning and hadn't had a chance to get to this yet. As I said above, I'm not comfortable with the entire history section comprising your new version here. I don't think it talks enough about how they lost their tax exempt status after an actual investigation. What exactly do you all have against this paragraph:

The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985. However, in February 1986 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was opening an investigation to determine whether the IWA and two other Virginia private schools had actually abandoned these policies.[6] William Hooper, IWA headmaster at that time, stated that although none of the school's 400 students were Black, the school was open to anyone.[6] In April 1986 the IRS announced that both IWA and the Amelia Academy would have their tax exemption revoked.[2] Hooper stated: "We just have not had a black to apply or a minority to apply. I don't know what we can do at this point. I hope we'll get some applications so we can get this thing behind us. Evidently that's what it's going to take, and we'd be happy to get some tomorrow."[2]

As argued above, this is encyclopedic since a bunch of schools got their status back, but Isle of Wight was one of three to be investigated and one of two to lose the status because of the investigation. Does it not also seem reasonable to include the response of the then-headmaster to this situation?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing here. I agree with Joe that it should continue to state explicitly somewhere that the school does not discriminate. Martin says that they could not get away with this today, but in fact racial discrimination in schools is perfectly legal in the USA, just not for schools operating as tax exempt charities. Thus it is a positive and actual choice that IWA has made to not discriminate, and shouldn't be left up to the reader to assume. Some schools have not made the choice to integrate. The IWA has. It should be mentioned.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to object to adding anything that you and Joe agree to, please feel free to add that the school no longer discriminates. As a Brit I am rather surprised and shocked to hear that racial discrimination is still allowed in the US, if that is indeed the case.

Regarding your proposed paragraph above, perhaps Joe could say if there is anything that he objects to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that you're shocked by the legality of racial segregation in private schools in the USA suggests that it might be worth putting some background information into this article (and others, as has been done) rather than assuming that anything that's true about all segregation academies ought to be left out of the articles on any particular one? Also maybe the fact that you're shocked by it suggests that the tax exemption issue is worth discussing at some length, since it's that tool which the government uses to discourage racial segregation in private schools, making it a perennial site of contention.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that a discussion of legality of racial segregation would be better in Discrimination_in_the_United_States, for example.

Why do you think that the tax exemption issue is so important? If you want to make some kind of comment about the ethics and ethos of the school it would be better to find an independent and reliable source that does so. Fishing up all the bad stuff (or good stuff) about any organisation is not the purpose of WP, we should provide a balanced overview. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear; I meant background information on about the legality of segregation in private schools in the USA rather than about discrimination in general, but it's not a big issue for me. The tax exemption issue is the quintessential thing about former segregation academies. Why do you think it's not important? Whenever any third party source writes about a former segregation academy, they discuss the history of its tax exempt status in great detail. Tax exemption issues for this school are all over the newspaper coverage of it. "Fishing up" (not exactly a neutral way to put it) all the information about the tax-exempt status of a private school, any private school, is not being unbalanced. Private schools and tax exemptions are a huge issue in the history of not just private schools in the US in general but of every individual private school as well. I'm not sure why you think it's unbalanced to include this information in detail. Perhaps you said above somewhere that it was because it happened thirty years ago. Glossing over essential issues just because they happened thirty years ago is also not the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm not making comments about the ethics of the school. I have reliable and independent sources for every statement I put in there about tax exemptions. Those sources also included the school's response to the IRS claims and I included those too. How is this making a comment about the ethics and ethos of the school? You seem to feel that I'm trying to trash this school by including this, but I'm really not. The article has made it clear all along that the school no longer discriminates. There's even a whole separate section on their compliance with SACS requirements that no one has ever suggested removing. I don't even understand how you and JOEWM think that a detailed history of the tax exemption issue reflects badly on the school. Nothing that was in there even said that they were discriminating after the 70s. It just says that the IRS said that they were and that they said that they weren't. What's the big deal?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

P.s. can you comment on specific parts of the sentence I proposed up there and say why you object to them?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not object to anything, I am trying to help in a dispute between yourself an Joe, I really am completely neutral in this. I am not from the US and have little knowledge about this subject but I am willing to listen to both yourself and Joe to try to understand your differing points of view so that I can help resolve the dispute.

I am still puzzled though why you want to add what you say was in the newspapers 30 years ago. You say tax exempt status is a huge issue. Why is this and why is it an important part of the school's history? I am just trying to understand. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not actually helping much. What you've managed to do is to remove what I and every reliable source on this school consider important material from the article on the basis of Joe's non-policy based, stridently expressed, objections and your vague feeling that material about IRS investigations reflects negatively on the school somehow. Now that it's out of the article the burden lies on those who want to reinsert it, which seems to be only me, as the other participants in the RFC seem to be gone now (not that I blame them) and very few people care about this backwater school in Virginia. Joe's happy enough with the article at this point, so I doubt we'll see him here again unless there's a change to the article. I'm not going to edit the article regarding tax exemptions because you and Joe have agreed that there's a consensus to leave the material out, even though it's clear to me that there's no consensus here, so that the article should have been left alone. You don't actually know anything about the topic, so your opinions of what constitutes undue weight are based on what? Intuition? This really isn't dispute resolution in any real sense. But thanks for your effort, anyway, I guess.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no power or desire to stop you editing the article but I would suggest that it would be a good idea to follow the BRD principle, making small changes at a time to ensure consensus.

The fact that I have no knowledge of this subject makes me a genuinely neutral editor, however, I do understand the principle of undue weight, which can apply to any subject. At the moment I can understand Joe's concern that giving too much detail on events that occurred 30 years ago when there were still segregation issues with the school might be considered giving undue weight to the school's dubious past. On the other hand, I do not understand your desire to include what, on the face of it, are rather boring details of the schools taxation affairs. I asked you to explain the importance of taxation to me but rather than doing this you essentially told me to go away. Why not tell me, what is the reason that you are so keen to include 30 year old taxation details in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not telling you to go away. I just don't feel that your involvement has been especially helpful. I'm not claiming that you're stopping me from editing. My respect for the principles of WP are stopping me. I explained above in detail why I thought that the IRS material is important. I don't really have anything new to say on the matter.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See Martin. You hit that nerve that I knew you would hit. Alf does not like it when other collaborate and the fact that someone else would even consider an opinion other than his own probably makes him a little crazy. I think the history is extremely fair and balanced now. It incorporates a lot of what Alf put in, so he should be happy. My MAJOR objection has always been putting that the school was founded as a segregation academy into its lead. That is now corrected and I am happy with it. I want to thank you Martin for helping us all reach a good compromise. I would just encourage you to be vigilant as Alf's M.O. seems to be coming back months later and making whatever changes he would like.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What are your objections to the paragraph that Alf wants to add? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not even sure what he wants to re-insert any more. I really like the version that you have put forward as it melds our two versions in the most fair way possible. The article as it is currently written is great I think.JOEWM2004 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

I think that before we can have a productive discussion about the contents of the history section we ought to clarify our understandings of WP:UNDUE. My understanding of it is that it says that articles should treat topics with weight that is proportional to the significance of the topic as measured by proportion of coverage in reliable sources. I base this on the following: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Martin, I get the feeling that you understand it differently, but perhaps I'm wrong.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly is the viewpoint that you think is not properly represented? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The viewpoint that the school was founded as a seg academy and that it had well-documented problems with the IRS.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not a viewpoint, no one disputes those facts and they are clearly stated as such in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, then why shouldn't those facts be discussed at a level of detail proportional to their coverage in sources?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See my reply above. Why not try to work with the other editors on my proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I am trying to do just that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, you are fighting a losing battle. There is no compromise with this guy. He changes the entire article and then you ask how to help fix it. His reply is you need to come up with something, when he was the one that changed what you originally wrote in the first place.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not fighting any battle, I am trying to help you and Alf reach a compromise acceptable to both of you. Perhaps you could add your comments to the sections above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And your help is appreciated 100%. I am so glad that there is a voice of reason; however, Alf does not do the whole compromise thing, so good luck. I will work on my comments, but with work and home life, it is very difficult to keep this going on a daily basis.JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Joe, as I have just said to Alf, I really do not have strong opinions on this subject and I am not going to fight any fight over this article. I am trying to help you two reach a compromise but I need to hear both opinions to do this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a consensus now or is this a temporary ceasefire?

There has been no more editing or discussion for a while now. Do we have some sort of agreement or are you both just waiting for an opportunity to make some discreet edits? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I am done. I am happy with the compromise here. Can we take off the banner now saying that the article is disputed?JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your false dichotomy between agreement and waiting to make discreet edits is ridiculous, Martin. There are a bunch of other possibilities. I can't speak for JOEWM2004, but what we have with me is that I'm on vacation and not editing much. I oppose removing the neutrality banner until there's an actual discussion of the issues involving the level of detail about the IRS status and the mention of the seg academy in the lead. Your method of dispute resolution, which you seem to claim doesn't require any knowledge of the subject matter and which is based on everyone making concessions until everyone else is happy, is not going to fix the problems on the page and, although, it superficially resembles one, doesn't seem to me to constitute such a discussion. Your claims that facts are too old, or unencyclopedic, or boring, are not helpful if they're not based on any kind of sense of what information people might be looking for when they look at this article. The three of us obviously aren't going to solve anything at this point, and I'm not going to reinsert the material you've removed without some new input into the matter. I do want the neutrality tag left on there in the hope that it will attract new editors to join this conversation at some point. I would also like to put the sources that you removed into a further reading section to make the information available to readers and to new editors who might end up having an opinion on the disputed matters here. Does anyone object to that? By the way, would you consider removing your signature from the middle of the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess since you're the odd man out, if we are playing by your old rule book, then the burden of proof now falls on you to convince the majority why the article should be changed. The level of detail about the IRS and the lead about the segregation academy have been decided. Unfortunately, it is not to your liking. You seem to have lost the argument, so please move on to ruin other articles, ok?JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Alf, sorry about the sig, I have removed it. I think it is generally true that everybody will have to make someconcessions to reach a consensus but this is not the only way I have tried to resolve this dispute. I have asked you to explain why you want to add the additional IRS material to this article and you have not given be an explanation that I can make sense of. I agree that I have no special interest or knowledge of this subject but that does at least make me genuinely neutral and I am perfectly willing to educated by anyone who wishes to do so. I do have a good knowledge of WP practice and policies and I can see no encyclopedic purpose in the material you wish to add but please feel free to try to convince me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Some old news

News related to the school [4].

Black face incident

I do not know why the facts keep getting removed . I am not saying whether or not the students were right or wrong.or rather or not administration did anything about it . But it did happen. Bbeez25 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff is opinion based and not based on facts. Either prove and cite or don't include it. Once you do that, then we'll talk about how this story is not really about the history of the school or how this inclusion of this on the page gives undue weight to an isolated incident you are trying to use to paint the institution in an unflattering light.

I will cite it later but trust me it is not an isolated incident and deserves its place. Linkdude2016 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also who is link dude. He is deleting material on the page Linkdude2016 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Prove it is not an isolated incident and then we'll talk. You seem like you have some sort of axe to grind, which makes you a party to this, which makes you ineligible to comment or participate in this. Look up Wikipedia guidelines.

History section copyright violation - 2021

I just deleted the entire History section. I note that there was a lot of discussion above about what should go there (about ten years ago), so I thought I should explain why briefly. The section that was there was copied directly from the source here. That source is clearly marked as being copyrighted, with all rights reserved. That means the section was a copyright violation, which is never acceptable in Wikipedia. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)