Talk:Nansemond-Suffolk Academy

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Schools

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

promotional material inserted by user:nsawebmaster

this is about this diff here and others like it. the material seems excessively promotional to me, and it's definitely unsourced. i think it doesn't belong in the article without at least some kind of sourcing. other opinions? p.s. i've tried to get Nsawebmaster to discuss his/her promotional username on the user talk page, to no avail so far.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in response to promotional material being posted

Again, excuse the "newbie": 1. I completely acknowledge that there is past revision history in our post which included promotional content from our website, which is against the Wikipedia protocol. I am attempting to "right our past wrongs" by adding factual content. 2. The purpose of creating a Nsawebmaster account was to address the factual issues lacking in our posting. As an editor with subject-matter expertise fully based on factual information, we felt it best to acknowledge who we are when editing or adding non-promotional content. We never intended to select what seemed to be a promotional user name and certainly did not expect that a user name selection could limit us from making factual revisions to a listing. 3. The last content that was removed by user Alf.laylah.wa.laylah was based on factual history of the school founding dates, etc. so there is concern that if we are expected to keep all Wikipedia content factual, we are attempting to follow that protocol and seemingly are unable to do so. 4. We are reviewing our founding charter to address further the statement and categorization of being a segregation academy, and will certainly work within the protocol of Wikipedia in maintaining its standards of authentic and factual content.

Please accept apologies if this article talk page is somehow in error; am trying to read Wikipedia guidelines so proper protocol on our end is followed in the community. Nsawebmaster (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, this is what the article talk pages are for, and thanks for engaging in conversation. i really have no problem with factual information about the school being included, but it's necessary to have reliable sources for all of it, and to avoid a promotional tone. it's probably ok to use sources published by the school for hard facts, like enrollments and so forth, but anything that's not a hard fact should ideally be cited to third-party sources. since you're admittedly editing on behalf of the school, it's also possible and maybe desirable to discuss your proposed changes on the conflict of interest noticeboard before you make them if they might be controversial. regarding the segregation academy issue, it seems to me to be about the only thing that makes the school notable in the wikipedian sense, and it's fairly well established even in hearings in front of congress, so you'll have a hard time getting that out of there just by reviewing your school charter, which is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for that kind of claim. also, you switch back and forth between "I" and "we" in your statements. if you're a "we", you're definitely violating WP:NOSHARE.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I will need to request permission from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard before the school content is edited? What I (and yes, this is an "I") posted were the facts, so now my question is to you: since you posted this edit issue and possible conflict of interest on that noticeboard, do I have to resolve this via that forum before I can add back the facts you removed? Also, we are reviewing this issue of segregation academies via Wikipedia. The article on Wikipedia's "segregation academies" cites the following case: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional.../allen-v-wright/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Note in the wikipedia article the justices state that the plantiffs asserted that there were more than 3,500 segregation academies in the US and this is in the 80’s . The justices rightly noted that they were only suing 17 and that none of the 17 on the list had been proven to discriminate against minorities. They claimed that the fact these schools existed was due to tax exemptions given by the IRS and that the IRS needed to have stricter rules regarding tax exemptions for these schools. Justices point out in the majority opinion that the existence of these schools does not hinge on these tax exemptions because private donors could make up for the difference in funding and they could still exist. The plantiffs were found to not have enough proof to uphold their claim of segregation. They did not, however, address the criteria that put a school into the category of a segregation academy. I am still researching the House Ways and Means hearings document you cite to backup our inclusion in the category of segregation academies. I am simply trying to clarify how to edit the Nansemond-Suffolk Academy listing to include facts about our school. In all fairness, even if I find that segregation academies belong in this history, then I should also be allowed to include our founding dates, our school accreditation, our athletics, academics, matriculation statistics, etc. as they would be factual parts of our history and our present. When I attempted yesterday to add factual content before it was removed by you, I did not remove the segregation note as you surely noticed; therefore I am concerned that I am not being allowed to add factual content as any other Wikipedia user would.Nsawebmaster (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, probably at this point you should get advice from someone other than me, because i really don't know enough about the policies involving conflicts of interest. you can ask for general guidance at the noticeboard. all i am saying is that if you want to put material in, you need reliable sources for it. that's well established at wikipedia. just because you say it's true, doesn't mean it goes in the article. anyway, really, i encourage you to ask for more guidance at the noticeboard as to how you should proceed. they know far more about it than i do over there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. you might want to look at WP:ABOUTSELF for information on what it's ok to use from sources actually published by the school.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to removing sourced content

The sourced content that was deemed removed is a duplicate fact that is already included, appropriately, in the history section. Is anyone opposed to me adding sourced accreditation information, adding some context to what the school is today, some history on the schools name, and adding clarification in text from sources that are already cited to make the text more clear?

The way this page is written seems disjointed or just trying to troll the school (considering the segregation piece is the only thing that is repeated twice in this article), especially given all the sourced facts they included in Talk above. If the school deserves it, I would like to be in the know of why. I've been seeing a lot of schools be targets of inappropriate reviews/content, etc, lately just for the lolz. Seems like the changes are being blocked in order to try to incite a negative emotional response. If the changes are legit, provide a full picture of the topic, and are sourced, why are the changes being so heavily repressed?

Again, I'm just seeing schools being targeted by slander or trolls and I'm a bit concerned about Wikipedia also being affected, which I generally see as a good source of non-bias, consolidated information. K-12 Shepherd (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K-12 Shepherd, The lede of the article is a summary of sorts, and then the body of the article, including the history section, should show more detail, so it's not really a duplicate. The lede is at the moment, a bit large compared to the body of the article, because there's so little there. A well sourced expansion would be welcomed. I've posted a welcome on your user talk page with some helpful information to help you get started. — Jacona (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll take a look at the welcome info and go from there. K-12 Shepherd (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]