Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please give references for reverts

The title reads better with a break after the name proper; where does wiki say that this improvement in looks is not permitted? When the picture is enlarged the affiliation takes one less line, and looks more appealing. I've reintroduced a more modest set of links; please explain why you are removing these so that we have something to discuss. Thanks for showing where you find these directives in Wiki; I suggest that those who have not contributed significantly to an article should not just edit it to impose their stylistic preferences. As to including the designation of a school official as a priest or member of a religious congregation, this is not an honorific but an indication that the school remains directly under the control of the group that founded it, and has not moved on to lay control. This is quite something different than listing academic degrees after a name. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jzsj. You were absent for a period. Hope you are well. I'm not prepared to discuss the title/post nominal issue right now, and I'd suggest listing the links you want with a brief explanation of what they show, and how they benefit the article. I'll look up some things and get back to you on the titles thing. On the picture I disagree, and I think you'll understand why once I explain some things. Your explanation above boils down to "it looks better to me as I look at it on my monitor", right? I think perhaps you are not aware that the page does not render the same on every device used to view it. Wikimedia software adjusts the page rendering to best fit the format of the device you are using to access it. For example, I access Wikipedia almost exclusively on a phone, slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes, and the picture size does not change the way the school name renders on it. By the way, portable device page views outnumber computer page views by quite a bit last I heard (about 60/40). That's why using thumbs in the body of the article and autosizing in the infobox is preferred. Uniformity between articles on similar topics in layout is also a positive, so letting the infobox size the images in it accomplishes that too. At 280, the image actually makes the infobox itself larger, which throws off the layout of the rest of the article on small format devices. So no, I cannot agree with you on that. Pretty sure I'll be equally inflexible on the title thing too. Much more open to persuasion on the links tho. At least it wasn't every club and team's webpage, which is what I usually encounter. Gotta go clean up after the church ladies early AM (they put the Christmas decorations away and Pastor tells me there's quite a mess), and then a swim date with my son, so I won't be back til this time tomorrow. Take care. John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would defend all the prominent links, which help those deciding on a school or whether to support the model, so that they realize how successful this model has actually been. I'm open to omitting the links that are otherwise mentioned in the article. As to using a phone to view websites, I'll keep that in mind but I doubt if it's the normal way in this case: poor parents might go to a library to use a computer and executives are probably on their desktops. I repeat that I see no directive from Wiki that we must follow the options for infoboxes without using other Wiki options to make the boxes more attractive. A chief instance: where the title of boxes comes to two lines and the entries on the right are only a few numerals, leaving large open spaces in the infobox. These contribute to the excessive length of the infobox and to its unsightliness. And if Wiki doesn't want some options like "br" and "big" used in infoboxes, why don't they make them inoperable there or explain these policies? As to why I'm absent for periods, I am the main prison chaplain for the diocese, helping at five state correctional centers and also at a parish on a regular basis. Then there's writing, with my 52nd article coming out this month, in The Way. Jzsj (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the purpose of this article. It's an encyclopedia article, not a promotional page for the school or the educational model; nor is it a feature article in a newspaper or magazine. It's supposed to be a factual, straightforward piece aimed at a general readership, not an inducement for parents or students. If you could find some scholarly evaluations of the educational model, that would be helpful. 32.218.39.162 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of what is of relevance about a school. Much that appears in Wikipedia is an inducement for parents and students: mention of sports championships, of notable alumni, of other honors the school received, of books informing about the nature of the school model pursued. I'm not sure what you mean by "scholarly evaluations" but I would not denigrate those who have commented on the model and brought it to national attention. The issue here might be how incredibly successful this model has been, but why must this be hidden from those interested in getting a better understanding of the school, through the eyes of outsiders who have worked with the school and give objective assessments of its results. Is it the fault of the school that these outside evaluations come out very positive? I couldn't see how to ping you but you will find a note at your newly-opened user talk page. Jzsj (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the Cristo Rey model. That info belongs in Cristo Rey Network, not in this article and all the other various school articles. repeating all of those links over and over in each article looks like an attempt to promote the model, and that is not what Wikipedia is here for. Meters (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've left out "all the links" and tied in the ones most relevant to this article. Please explain to me how this is mere promotion and not valid assessment of this very model as it is practiced at this school. @Meters: Jzsj (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Media plaudits and personal anecdotes do not qualify as "validation"; they're hype, nothing more. If such commentary qualified as "validation", then the DARE program would be the most successful intervention in the history of planet earth, when in fact, every single scholarly evaluation done of it (dozens of them) has failed to show its effectiveness at preventing drug use. Again, if you know of any peer-reviewed evidence-based reports on the effectiveness of the program, then please include that information in the Cristo Rey Network article (not here or in any of the individual high school articles). 32.218.42.196 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that the Boston Globe article, that clarifies the nature of all (and of this) Cristo Rey schools, has at least as much standing in Wikipedia as the Pleasanton Weekly which is referenced 34 times in the article on the featured school Amador Valley High School. Jzsj (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article is already cited in the Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School article. And for the umpteenth time, stop comparing anything Cristo Rey-related to any other article. WP:OTHERSTUFF is neither a compelling nor a valid argument. 32.218.152.164 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, this, and every other article in this encyclopedia, is not here to serve ′′any′′ purpose or goal of the subject of the article. Instead, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize what has been written about the subject in independent sources. Not connected sources. Articles are meant to be narrowly focused, as Meters mentioned above. You do not need to add copy about related subjects. Instead, just wikilink the article on the subject once. And the information in the article needs to be aimed at a general audience, not a narrowly focused group such as a certain religion. Do you honestly think anyone other than a Catholic knows or cares what the alphabet soup you're adding after people's names means? John from Idegon (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Identifying people by their religious order is extremely common in infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. It's not a policy I'm originating. Usually one checks the article to find what order is mentioned. Jzsj (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And it is out of policy. MOS:NAME is the applicable guideline. And there are plenty of articles that are formatted wrong, promotional or downright factually incorrect in Wikipedia. If you find a pile of dog crap in your living room, is it proper to ignore it because the dog crapped in the parlor too? Just because other articles are done incorrectly is no reason this one should stay that way. You've had two different editors tell you using titles and post nominal letters is not within style guides, but you persist in asserting the correctness of your position despite it. As you can tell from my delay in returning to this discussion, I'm a busy guy and really don't like wasting my time reexplaining again something you should have accepted in good faith. John from Idegon (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I find justification (in the reference you give) for using the postnominal of a religious who is an administrator at the institution. It is in the statement: "... when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material." The post-nominals being discussed all pertain to the institution under discussion and give a very succinct indication that the institution is presently under the oversight of the group that founded it. If you have a reference that contradicts this interpretation, I need to know it. Jzsj (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The designation "Sr." and the post-nominal "SNDdeN" are a succinct way of indicating in the infobox that an institution is under the direct leadership of a religious order or diocese. I think it's an important principle to establish that such pre-nominals and post-nominals are admissible in infoboxes, or someone may proceed to remove them wholesale from the hundreds of articles that contain them. They are clearer than a mere reference in the infobox, and such references are discountenanced at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#References in infoboxes. I find nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Names referred to above that would rule out this usage in infoboxes. Jzsj (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

IPlease avoid explicitly setting the thumbnail size to a specific number of pixels. If there is a consensus that an image needs to be bigger, please use the “upright” parameter to set a scaling ratio. See WP:IMGSIZE Billhpike (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to this. I've picked up most of my info from other articles, and even featured articles like Duke University still use the "px" option. I'll be more sensitive to the needs of "smaller device" users in the future. Jzsj (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)@Jzsj: You were bold and added some content; it was subsequently removed by another editor who disputes its encycopedic relevance. What should happen now is that you follow WP:BRD and try to establish a consensus for re-adding it. If a discussion cannot be established on this talk page, then follow the next step in WP:DR. Continuing to try to re-add the content is going to be seen as edit warring on your part, so it's better to be WP:CAUTIOUS here. The version of the article which you are in favor of can be seen in the article's edit history, but a link to it can be found here for review/comparison purposes. FWIW, I've only removed the content per WP:STATUSQUO; if the consensus is to re-add it, then it can and will be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My view: The content cited to the 60 Minutes piece supplements exsiting uncited content and belongs in the article. The list of college matriculations is just WP:PROMO and should not be included. Billhpike (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for being distinguishing in your edits, and for giving reasons. But I don't understand how "acclaimed" can be a weasel word here when it is hugely substantiated in the link that follows it. Please explain. Jzsj (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not hugely substantiated. (See my comment above.) It's simply an opinion. 32.218.42.196 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please check the references in the article Cristo Rey Network. You seem to be setting a very narrow and high norm for acclaim if the board members of the Gates Foundation which gave the network $15.9 million in grants and the judgment of 60 minutes do not exceed the acclaim received by the D.A.R.E. show. Any organization may run into disrepute. If it does this should be mentioned in the Wiki article on it. But until it does we must go by the acclaim that the above knowledge-based sources, and scholarly writers for reputable newspapers, have given as their considered assessment of the model. I strongly suggest that the word "acclaimed" be restored, unless you can find better support in Wiki for what you are maintaining. Jzsj (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

1. The newspapers haven't "assessed" the model; they've described it. Read this to understand the difference.
2. "Acclaimed", as already described by another editor, is a WP:WEASEL word intended to bias the reader. But one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that it strives to be neutral and factual, not to influence readers or to advocate for any point of view. Let the reader decide, from the article and its sources, whether the program is "acclaimed". 32.218.32.187 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You're referring me to a Wiki article that describes weasel words as those where "only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". This hardly applies to the money given by the Gates foundation or the coverage given by 60 minutes. Jzsj (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Taking up a thread from the (search: MOS:NAME) discussion above, this is a very important issue, whether all the many infoboxes which carry a post-nominal of a religious institute after a person's name, and Fr. or Sr. before a name, are against expressed policy. At the MOS:NAME reference you give I find no mention of religious pre- or post-nominals. Do you know a clear reference for why the pre- and post- nominals should be removed when a name like Fr. John Doe, SJ is carried in an infobox? Understood that the Fr. and the SJ would be explained in the article or linked in the infobox. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on categorizing Cristo Rey schools

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.

---

May all Cristo Ray schools be placed in the category “Poverty-related organizations”? Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Simply making Cristo Rey Network a subcategory of Category:Poverty-related organizations would not give evidence on each school's Wikipedia page that the school's essential purpose is poverty related. All the other subcategories of  Poverty related schools have clear indication in the subcategory name that they are poverty related. Also, as explained at Wikipedia:Category intersection#Background, there is no established Wikipedia policy "defining the circumstances in which articles should be added to both "lower level" and "higher level" categories".

The purpose of Cristo Rey schools is clearly poverty-related. It is the primary reason that thousands of corporations employ students from these 35 schools across the country. The Cristo Rey Network's stated purpose is to serve “students with limited economic resources”, providing an “ inner-city education that equips students from economically-disadvantaged families” to obtain a university degree. The 60 minutes report makes it clear that the schools cater to inner city youth. All the many articles published about these schools consistently point out that they have been founded precisely to serve disadvantaged youth in the inner cities. Checking the other entries in the category “Poverty-related organizations” indicates that Cristo Rey schools would be very much at home in this category. They would not fit as well in any category describing "charities", as can be seen from the organizations listed under "charities". Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Assuming a source can be found, Category:Cristo Rey Network should be added to Category:Social welfare charities based in the United States, which is a subcategory of Category:Poverty-related organizations. Billhpike (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• OpposeThere is no evidence that Cristo Rey Network aims at addressing poverty; it simply serves youth from low-income families. Also oppose Billhpike's suggestion to include Category:Cristo Rey Network in Category:Social welfare charities based in the United States. The network is an educational provider, not a social welfare provider. It does not provide food, clothing, shelter, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, family therapy, foster care, adoption services, or any other form of social service. It provides education. It is an educational charity and belongs in Category:Educational charities based in the United States. 32.218.34.95 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Further comment: Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is registered as a 501(c)(3) charity with the federal government. Per IRS Publication 557, 501(c)(3) is defined as "Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations". Its foundation status, as registered with the IRS, is: "School 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)". Within the official National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE), "a system developed by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to classify nonprofit organizations", (See first link above.) it is classified as "Secondary, High School" and "Educational Institutions and Related Activities", not "Human Services - Multipurpose and Other". This seems definitive; per the U.S. federal government, a reliable source, and the school itself, the school is an educational charity, not a poverty-related program. 32.218.46.39 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the discussions in the previous threads, this category (or any other applicable category) would be better applied to Category:Cristo Rey Network if it were determined that it applied. I'm starting to have my doubts that the category would be applicable even at the network level though. Many high schools and universities have programs that combine work and study, but it is done simply for the work experience rather than for poverty reasons. As has been said, we need reliable sources that say that the Cristo Rey Network's goal is related to poverty. Having said that, this is getting off topic. The RFC at hand is whether to add this category to all of the school in the Croisto Rey Network. I oppose that. The issue of whether to add the category to the network should no tbe decided here. Meters (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the above. A discussion of a wider topic is off-topic here. Many schools, public and private, have programs in place to aid the families of students that are impoverished. That does not mean their purpose (even secondarily) is fighting poverty. Many studies have shown that if you diminish the effects of poverty's bi-products (hunger, lack of adequate clothing, etc) on students, they become better students. Addressing the causes of poverty (of which lack of educational opportunities is a biggie) is or should be a primary goal of every educational institution. I could see adding the network to this catagory, but not any individual school, and as it stands now, this is not an adequate forum to address the question of categories on another article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - belongs under Category:Educational charities based in the United States as it currently is. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose They educate and empower but do not make the pupils or parents any richer. The Banner talk 15:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support First of all, the school is an organization, an institution. The category under discussion is about organizations and not "programs".

Second, "poor people" is a subset of "low-income people". If this school does something for low-income people in general, then it affects/includes poor people also.

Third, let's ask ourselves: If an institution provides low-income people "only" with shoes, wouldn't that qualify the organization as one that helps low-income people? It surely would. Someone above objected on the grounds that the school "does not provide food, clothing, shelter, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, family therapy, foster care, adoption services, or any other form of social service"; only "education"! That I find to be a preposterous argument. Education is a supreme enrichment of the intellect, while also, strictly socially, an important and very useful qualification. And we do not need "third-party sources" to support this claim since, if anything, all Wikipedia contributors are here on this basis exactly! We cannot seriously say that an organization offers "only" education, as if that is not a significant contribution on its own. At the very least, let's not say it in the pages of Wikipedia.

Clincher: The operative word here is income. The school's stated purpose is expressly to serve “students with limited economic resources.” That means "people with low income." If organization XYZ aims to offer something (money, materials, education) to people who are poor, then, by definition, that is an organization that relates its work to poverty; it is itself related to poverty. It's a poverty-related organization. -The Gnome (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment By that logic, we could categorize every single educational institution on the planet as "poverty-related". We could also include all employers, e.g., GE, Amazon, Walmart, etc., as "poverty-related" because they provide incomes to their employees, and without an income those employees would be poor. I don't think we really need to resort to a Rube Goldberg train of causality here; we need to focus on proximal goals, not distal ones. The proximal goal of this school and others in the Cristo Rey Network is to provide an education. 32.218.152.188 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@32.218.152.188 The likes of GE or Amazon offer programs for the poorer people. These programs are just one part of their overall positioning, mission, and strategy. But the organizations are evidently not about nor aiming at the poorer people per se. Cristo states it specifically exists to assist poorer people. So, there is no basis to your argument because there is no similarity whatsoever between Cristo and the companies you proffered. -The Gnome (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Further, it is very difficult to view an organization that charges a minimum of $3300 to provide a service that can be obtained for free elsewhere as truly dedicated to alleviating poverty. Before it should even be considered, reliable independent sources are needed to indicate it is more than just rhetoric. John from Idegon (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon This kind of "judgement" fall outside the scope of Wikipedia's contributors. We are not here to "judge". Cristo states quite explicitly that its mission is to assist the poorer people. We might find this preposterous or a lie, but the burden of disputing what Cristo claims rests on us; not on Cristo! If we have third-party, reliable sources that dispute Cristo's claims, we can certainly include their POV, and then have in the text something like, "Cristo states XYZ yet this is disputed by a, b, c." Categorization follows what's in the text at all times. -The Gnome (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What falls outside the scope of Wikipedia is serving as a mouthpiece for the institution that is the subject of the article. Their mission, as they state it, is entirely off topic. If reliable secondary sources discuss this school's mission being a poverty related organization, perhaps your claim may have validity. So where's your source? John from Idegon (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What "source" exactly are you looking for? Do you believe we are supposed to ignore what Cristo states about itself, judge (without any sources that corroborate our judgement) Cristo's statement as false, and then demand that the burden of proof lays on Cristo?! That would be, I'm afraid, a clear case of personal opinion. Whatever Cristo claims about itself is certainly not "outside the scope of Wikipedia". We are obliged to include it as a matter of information (but not fact). And, I repeat, if third-party, reliable sources happen to dispute Cristo's statements, we should certainly include their POV. Make no mistake, we are not sitting in judgement of Cristo here! -The Gnome (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the Boston Globe article, the president of Notre Dame Cristo Rey said: "We have only one goal for our students, and that’s to become college-graduated leaders." That doesn't sound poverty-related to me. Per the school's website, the school's mission is to provide "a Catholic, affordable, culturally sensitive, college preparatory education enhanced by professional work experience for young men and women from families with limited income." Sounds like religion, cultural sensitivity, education, and work experience are the priorities here. Further, the school website states that the school's vision is to "be known for graduating confident, academically successful students who are spiritually rooted, intellectually curious, active community and global citizens and college graduated leaders." No mention at all of poverty there. So that's what both third-party sources and the school itself say about its goals. 32.218.43.245 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@32.218.43.245 We are supposed to treat written documents more seriously than equivalent texts in spoken word. What the Cristo president said, in any case, is in line with the school's and the system's mission statements: They have only one goal for their students, and that's to get their students to become college-graduated leaders - in a school aimed at poorer students. No contradiction whatsoever.

Organizations (a school, a civil service, a volunteer group, etc) might be about and for the poorer people while their activity is in different fields: one provides education for the poorer people (in some cases religious education), another provides books for them (in some cases strictly religious books), another might provide assistance for alcoholism (in some cases combined with spiritual or religious exercises), and so on. What you seem to be missing in this discussion (and you're not alone) is that a Wikipedia article can belong to more than one category! It is trivially evident that Cristo belongs both to the category about religious education and to one about organizations aimed at the poorer folks. Nothing antithetical in this. -The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

What the Cristo president said, in any case, is in line with the school's and the system's mission statements: They have only one goal for their students, and that's to get their students to become college-graduated leaders. Exactly!. So why are we pretending that this program's goal is to address poverty?

"No contradiction whatsoever." Huh?? I never said there was one. What in the world are you talking about?

What you seem to be missing in this discussion (and you're not alone) is that "serving the poor" is not the same as "addressing poverty" or being "poverty-related". Gideons, AA, FEMA, Harvard University, and Cristo Rey serve the poor, but they're not poverty-related programs. 32.218.34.170 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Charter schools in the inner cities are being subsidized by some states precisely to address the poor quality of the government schools in the inner cities. The goal of these schools is to try to prepare students for college. But the purpose for founding them and the nature of their clientele make them "poverty-related". Jzsj (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: Much of the above discussion might not have been necessary if 32.218.37.194 hadn't removed from the article the material I added precisely to clarify the inner-city context in which this school was founded, and which answered the question about why this school is different from ordinary prep schools that prepare their students for a university education. Since that material is now hidden in the past record there, I restore it for consideration here:

Lawrence is an old mill town experiencing financial problems, with one of the highest poverty rates in Massachusetts (29.2%). In 2011 this would lead to the unprecedented takeover of the whole, “chronically underachieving” Lawrence public school district by the state.

The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur have as their central mission to work “with and among people living in poverty”.They turned to the Cristo Rey work-study model of schools, that had originated in 1996 with Cristo Rey Jesuit High School in Chicago to give disadvantaged students a better chance at a college education. In 2004 the sisters opened the seventh school in the Cristo Rey Network, with start-up money from the Cassian foundation, who also subsidized the feasibility studies that preceded the founding of Cristo Rey schools.

(The final reference is updated in accord with discussion that has taken place.) Jzsj (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"if 32.218.37.194 hadn't removed from the article the material I added precisely to clarify the inner-city context in which this school was founded"

Would that be this edit by John from Idegon that first deleted much of what you consider to be "the context"?

Or this edit by John from Idegon that deleted it again?

Or this edit where I restored some of your wording?

Or this edit that reworded awkward writing?

Or this edit where John from Idegon removed unsourced original research?

Or this edit, also by John from Idegon?

Or this edit that kept the context, but reframed it in a much more concise way?

Or this edit by John from Idegon that restored an earlier version of the text? 32.218.43.245

I suggest you be more careful with your wild-eyed accusations. (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No, none of those. It is the edit where you removed the material in bold print above: 23:48, 6 February 2018‎ 32.218.37.194 (talk)‎ . . (5,836 bytes) (-1,404)‎ . . (→‎History: rm off-topic content; article is about school, not about city or order of nuns) (Tag: references removed)

No one else had intervened since my placing the bold section above at 23:16, 6 February 2018‎ Jzsj (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,864 bytes) (+1,954)‎ . . (→‎History: historical background that explains the mission of the school)

I didn't mean to offend you. I thought that since you use just a number you would not object to my identifying you by that number. Jzsj (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Knowing the history obviously enhances our understanding of the context. In any case, and irrespective of our own personal views on religion and/or education, the record is clear and explicit: This is an organization (it happens to be an educational and religious one) that is aimed at the poorer people! It does not "also" service poorer folks; it does not have a "program" among many for poorer folks; it is about and aiming at poorer folks, not just hypothetically (i.e. only in a written statement) but in practice. Every self respecting atheist such as your humble servant must abide by Wikipedia rules and place this institution in the category about poorer people. This is just how it is. -The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support If the school's charter expressly mentions its mission in this way, it is clearly poverty related. But the discussion should apply to all schools in the network. Clean Copy^talk 12:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - (invited by a bot) Any program that seeks to help low income people can be legitimately categorized as "poverty-related." I don't think that's an important distinction for this school, but the category is quite broad (and therefore not so meaningful) and it fits well enough. [Note: I see that some here consider this issue important, but coming here from the outside, it seems like consensus should not be so difficult as to require an RFC.] Jojalozzo (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - summoned by bot. This isn't the type of group one thinks of when thinking of poverty related organizations. I agree with 32.218.152.188 that by using this broad definition, every college and every employer would qualify for this list. And this should be on Talk:Cristo Rey Network. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Poverty-related organizations is a very broad category, hosting all sorts of organizations, and the designation itself seems very general to me. If there was a better way to direct readers to the Cristo Rey Network as a poverty-related effort, then that would suffice. Jzsj (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Notwithstanding, readers can already navigate to this school via Category:Poverty-related organizations → Category:Poverty-related organizations → Category:Cristo Rey Network → this article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Since this discussion applies to multiple schools, this discussion would be more appropriate at Category talk:Poverty-related organizations or Talk:Cristo Rey Network Billhpike (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Bill. Also, Jzsj, you only get to !vote once in an RfC. Not three times, including once on the oppose and twice in support. John from Idegon (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect Jzsj was confused by the example at WP:RFC. I've opened a discussion about updating the RFC instructions. See WT:RFC#Sample WikiText may be unclear? Billhpike (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to complete this issue with relation to this particular school, where it has arisen. Jzsj (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors have explained that this discussion applies to all of the schools in the network and thus it should not be made here. This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. We are not going to go through this discussion on each of the schools' pages. Since you ignored our advice then you should place a notification on the talk page of each of the affected schools so that other interested editors will be aware of this discussion. Meters (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Meters, as explained in my !vote above. Dealing with the way a specific editor in these conversations handles dispute resolution is getting past the point of AGF. Administrative intervention will soon be required. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've been dealing entirely with three identifiable editors on this issue, and it is clear that they agree with one another. I trust that an administrator will decide on the merits of the case. Jzsj (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That's about typical on a single school article, and this discussion will be open a month. John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand Jzsj's comment. There are 3 named editors and an IP who have opposed the RFC. There are other named editors (and IPs who are likely the same IP as the RFC IP) who have commented against the changes in the above threads. Unless there is some over riding policy issue (which seems unlikely to me) the RFC will be decided by consensus, and it may be closed by any uninvolved ediotor, not just an admin. If Jzsj is concerned that the input on the RFC is from the same editors who have already commented on this talk page then he shoudl have taken our advice and taken this to a more general venue. I also suggested above that he post notices of this discussion to the other affected school pages but he has not done so. Meters (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Note that Jzsj has notified others about this RFC. See WP:Christianity/Noticeboard/Urgent, Category talk:Poverty-related organizations‎, and User talk:JoeHebda. I asked Jzsj to post here about his canvassing, but he has not replied. Billhpike (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

On being made aware of the canvassing policy I removed the notice at Christianity. The notice at Poverty-related is a neutral notice of the question at what seems an appropriate place. If this is against an explicit Wikipedia policy, please remove it or give a reference to the policy. Sorry, I can't undo the Joe Hebda notice; I notified him as one whose edits on the article might be reverted, but he signifies no interest in entering this discussion. Jzsj (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to announcing this RFC at WP:WikiProject Christianity. I only ask that that you link to wherever this RFC is announced. Billhpike (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing with notifications, Jzsj. You've been cited CANVAS already. The announcement has to be neutral, which your announcement at Christianity wasn't (the level three twinkle warning image alone was enough to ensure that). And there needs to be a fair distribution. Generally, if you are going to notify projects, minimumly you need to notify all the projects that have claim on this article, which should be United States/Massachusetts, Schools and Catholicism. You use exactly the same wording in all notifications. I'm not objecting to the notification on the category talk page, as no one will see that. The only time that talk page was edited was to place the project banner in 2012. It's generally not a good idea to notify individuals, but not forbidden. You cannot however notify only individuals that you think will back your position, which notifying Joe definitely was. Usually, the only way to avoid an accusation of canvassing is to notify ALL the editors that have edited the article in the past X months. One other thing about canvassing; you cannot unring a bell. The damage is already done. Again, and now with policy based solid reasons, not just common sense, I'm going to ask you to undo the damage you've done. Go to an administrator, tell them what's transpired here and shut this down. Restart it on the Cristo Rey talk page, or better yet at the Education Project talk page. Father, you are getting very close to the point where you are going to get sanctioned here. Frankly it is only out of respect to your position in life that I haven't sought administrative intervention already. Instead I asked Tony to speak to you as an administrator. I don't want to see you topic banned from articles on parochial education, but that is where this is going to have to go if you don't start acting like a Wikipedian here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message for administrators. Since the few notifications produced no new participants in this discussion during their brief time of appearance, and since they no longer exist, it is not likely that any new participants who might arise have found their way here from these notifications. Jzsj (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the discussion should take place at the larger level, not here.Clean Copy^talk 12:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• My original purpose in adding this category was that some material indicative of the mission of the school and, giving underprivileged youth a better chance at a university education, was edited out of the school's article. What now seems most critical to me is that categories are not meant to be read from the school's article to the category but in reverse, simply and exclusively to direct people to the school article. And so I would agree that since the schools are in the subcategory Cristo Rey Network this is sufficient for people looking for poverty-related organizations to locate these schools. But I hope that all those editing articles on Cristo Rey schools will allow sufficient material establishing that they are indeed all poverty-related. Jzsj (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks after starting an RFC is far too late to be trying to explain or change things. I suggest that you read WP:BLUDGEON. Meters (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

In light of a new voice in the mix, I withdraw my suggestion to close this discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Billhpike and 32.*; use Billhpike's suggested categorization. Our category system is a hierarchical navigation tree, not a tag cloud.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Therefore, to indicate on each network school page that the school is poverty-related, I propose we take Category:Cristo Rey Network out of the Category:Poverty-related organizations and place Cristo Rey Network along with all the schools in the primary Category:Poverty-related organizations. This would obviate the problem that I mentioned above, that the name "Cristo Rey Network" does not itself convey that it is poverty related as do the other subcategories in Category:Poverty-related organizations. Jzsj (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

What part of "Two weeks after starting an RFC is far too late to be trying to explain or change things" from 6 February was unclear? You started an RFC. You cannot change it after the fact. Meters (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

My original proposal was: "May all Cristo Ray schools be placed in the category “Poverty-related organizations”? On 6 February I proposed to please those who give a more rigorous interpretation to the categorization guidelines, but since then a couple new voices have entered the discussion and I again support my original proposal. I mention just above that it might also be achieved by moving the Cristo Rey Network to being a category rather than a subcategory of Category:Poverty-related organizations, thus eliminating the debate over the guideline for Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing subcategories, or over how the statement that pages are "not normally placed directly into" a category and subcategory should be applied here. Jzsj (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2018 (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.

Pre-nominal and post-nominal

Off-topic discussion about Wikipedia policy & guidelines

Pre-nominals (Fr., Sr., Br.) and post-nominal designations (OSB, SJ, SSND, …) of religious affiliation of persons who run schools are very common in Wikipedia. The rationale for using them is to show that the leadership of a school remains in the hands of a representative of a diocese or religious congregation, and has not passed to lay control. Jzsj (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC) @Jzsj: I'm not sure if the community will agree with you, but I think your argument is reasonable. The fact that the leaders of an organization are members of a religious order seems reasonably encyclopedic. Could you wikilink the post-nominals to the religious order? Many people don't know that what initialisms like SSND or OSB stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC) WP:CREDENTIAL is perfectly clear: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor") should only be used in a Wikipedia article when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name ... (e.g. Ruth Westheimer, better known as Dr. Ruth ...)." Presumably "Sr. Maryalyce Gilfeather" is not a stage name. MOS:POSTNOM is equally clear: "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization." The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur is hardly a widely recognizable organization. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. 32.218.37.222 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)I completely disagree. If you want to use titles, start a discussion over at MOS to add clerical titles to the list of exceptions to our policy on not using titles (that list currently consists of military and heraldic titles). An article is not the place for that discussion. I doubt I'd oppose it if it were brought to question properly there. As far a post nominal go, the utility of them is questionable in an encyclopedia of general interest. If this were a religion encyclopedia, I could see it. It isn't. The majority of our readers aren't even Christian. The vast majority of Christians are not Catholic. I have absolutely no objection to linking the name of the order that runs a school in the article, or even the "affiliation" field in the infobox, but one editor's contention that tagging individuals with postnominals that indicate what order they belong to serves as some sort of shorthand is nonsense. It's meaningless information to the vast majority of our readers, and unduely emphasizes non notable individuals in an article about an institution. Not to mention allowing for religious postnominals opens the door to seeing "|principal=Joe Foo Ed.Dr, PhD, MD" on multiple school articles, content that does not serve any information purpose for the school and does serve the school's marketing effort. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Further on post nominal letters: note that the only place they are endorsed is in the lede of biographical articles. They have absolutely no place in a school article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Jzsz had said his motivation behind including the nominals is to idicate that the institutions leadership are not lay administrators. Assuming that sources can be found, I think it would be appropriate for the article to say something to the effect “The school was established by the Jesuits and all headmasters have been members of that order” BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC) By all means. If a reliable independent source can be found that says that, I'd thouroughly endorse that. I'd even be pleased to see a listing of those individuals, and I think it would suffice for the list only (not a claim that they were all Jesuits) to be self-sourced. But please leave the alphabet soup on the shelf in the pantry. John from Idegon (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC) I have no objection to a comment such as that in the article,. I agree that the various pre- and post-nominals were uninformative (to most readers) and against policy. Meters (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC) As to number 1, being a member of the clergy or of a religious organization is not the same as academic and professional degrees (which the clergy may possess but we're not arguing for their inclusion). In number 2 you are quoting an article on biographies, not on schools, and it also is speaking of academic degrees. One can learn from the link to "Sr." that it is not an academic degree. I should have linked "Sr." and "SNDdeN" to Nun and Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, as I have in the past. (I've just added these links in this discussion.) By adding these pre and post nominals, one easily learns who is in charge of the day-to-day running of the school, which matters to most of those who are interested in the school. I am hearing no good reason for removing these pre and post nominals from the hundreds of school articles that contain them. I don't agree that post-nominals of a religious congregation should be equated with honorifics, and when they are linked to the organization they give succinct indication of who is running the school. I'm willing to go to all the school articles I can find and link the pre and post nominals in the infoboxes to assist those who don't know what "Fr." or "Sr." stands for. Must "Rev." also be linked, or is that one clear? Of course, in the past, the directive that what's in infoboxes should be explained in the article has been used to cover the religious pre and post nominals and the omission of references in the infoboxes. Jzsj (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC) WP:CREDENTIAL speaks to TITLES, not degrees, e.g., Dr., Sr., Fr., Prof., etc. Sorry you don't understand the difference. ("Dr." is a title; "MD" is a degree.) But, then, maybe you don't want to know the difference. ("I am hearing no good reason for removing these pre and post nominals from the hundreds of school articles that contain them.") 32.218.152.110 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC) As to number 1, the section you refer to is actually entitled "Academic titles" and speaks of academic credentials, not religious affiliation. The only examples they give are related to academic degrees: "Dr." and "Professor". They never mention Fr. or Sr. which are all that's under discussion here. Jzsj (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) We don't use either, without good reason. Fr./Sr. can sometimes be appropriate, in the same context that a job title like "Marketing VP Jane Smith said ..." would be, i.e. when it's contextually important. After the context is established, don't keep using it. And at first occurrence don't abbreviate it anyway, per MOS:ABBR. Similarly we might write "Joe Garcia, a professor of economics at Foobar University" (not "Prof. of Econ. Joe Garcia"), and thereafter refer to "Garcia", not "Prof. Garcia". WP is not written like a newspaper.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC) The context in which this question arose here is the removal of pre-nominals and post-nominals from infoboxes. The wider discussion may be necessary but the question as it arose here is reflected above at the paragraph on "alphabet soup" and following. Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see User:Jzsj ignore this discussion. The Banner talk 14:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Facts that clarify the program

I propose to add this rewording of what was removed, and would like to know which criteria in Wikipedia, if any, would disallow the inclusion of such facts.
A four-student team, one from each grade, share an entry-level job at a corporation, each working one day of every week, five days each month. The students, from the age of 14, earn about $19/hour in the corporate world to cover 60% of their tuition. The Notre Dame students have been described as a "valuable resource" in support of other employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 14:37, January 30, 2018 (UTC)

References

• Oppose that in its entirety. Material sourced to Globe does not verify to the article. Material sourced to the corporate website includes an unattributed quote and it comes from an unreliable source. John from Idegon (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support The Boston Globe has the following statement: "Notre Dame students work five days per month at a private company to earn 60 percent of their $12,000 tuition". Over nine months of the school year, that comes to close to $20/hour. And as to the statement on the MFA Companies website, I don't understand why we must be sceptical of the veracity of a corporation making a modest claim about their experience with the Cristo Rey program. When we include material from a school's website we don't say it's unreliable because it isn't attributed to one person. The statement is a local example, similar to what is said in the references contained on the Cristo Rey Network page. Jzsj (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Globe article is it stated "A four-student team, one from each grade, share an entry-level job at a corporation, each working one day of every week, five days each month", nor anything like that which would verify the copy I just quoted. You are obviously synthesizing that with something else. On the other, corporations have websites to serve their purposes, not to provide facts about tangentially related topics. All a corporate website can be used for is to reference indisputable facts about the company, not some copy about a school. See WP:RS. As the Globe article is in part on point for the subject of this article (once you eliminate the self serving quotes from the school staff and the parts about other schools), perhaps another editor may be willing to add some accurately paraphrased content based on it. John from Idegon (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What fact do you question from which the statement I add is a helpful conclusion? Do you just want proof that they have a 9-month school year? Jzsj (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Jzsj: As a compromise, I would suggest incorporating this doctoral disseration about the work study program in the article about the Cristo Rey Network. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This statement is already in the article, supported by the Boston Globe citation: "A four-student team, one from each grade, share an entry-level job at a corporation, each working one day of the week, five days each month. Student earnings cover 60% of their tuition." Anything beyond that (student wages, employer blurb) is unencyclopedic promotional fluff. The dissertation could be a source of info for the article, as long as its findings and conclusions aren't cherry-picked. 32.218.46.254 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the Globe article does it state that 4 student teams work one job. What is the source for that, Jzsj? Please provide a citation for that. John from Idegon (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • You'll find it at and explained on YouTube, both on Notre Dame's website. Jzsj (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • So, no reliable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The educational model is best fleshed out at Cristo Rey Network, for which there are likely to be some reliable sources. (YouTube isn't one of them.) 32.218.46.254 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Further, 32, Bill is proposing adding content based on the dissertation to a different article, not this one. I'll reserve comment on the source for discussion at another talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. The dissertation would work as a source for Cristo Rey Network, but not for any of the individual school articles. 32.218.46.254 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I overlooked signing my original statement at the top of this section, and my signing it late was disallowed. But I fully claim the statement and two references. Jzsj (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It has already been signed for you. Meters (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• The bot signed it for you and added the time in UTC. You reverted the bot and added the time in who knows what time zone. More disruption. John from Idegon (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I signed it but forgot to substitute the template. Meters (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose That's too much detail, and the quote is just PR puffery. No company involved in such a program is going to say less than that. As has been pointed out,the gist of that material is already in the article. I think it's sufficient to say that the students work in industry while in school, following the Cristo Rey model, to earn part of their tuition. Further details belong in the Cristo Rey article Meters (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support / use alternative wording added in my previous edit. John from Idegon has needlessly removed an edit that I made without knowledge of this discussion. I've provided mildly different wording that uses the materials available from the school to leverage the Globe article and describe in concise detail how the program works. Additionally, the needless revert removed details of how tuition works; while the infobox lists an MSRP of $12,500, the actual price paid is $3,200 per family, defrayed through contributions and (mostly through) work study. This is an essential element of the business model that this school uses for student families and these details are entirely lost if readers have to search elsewhere to find it.
  I'm not sure what cause is being defended here as the sources have been provided to back up the four-person team concept. Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would support Alansohn's addition, but I find the addition I propose at the start to be a succinct way to indicate a very impressive fact about the school, briefly clarifying its very nature, without a lot of words. I would like to retain it. Jzsj (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj. we've already explained why your version is not acceptable.

Alansohn, I don't see the undo of your edit as needless. It's contested material that is under discussion on the talk page, with most editors not supporting its inclusion. The fact that you were not aware of this talk page discussion does not mean that your changes should be considered separately from this discussion of the material.

I agree that the clarification of the actual fees charged is a good addition: $12,500 tuition with approximately 60% from the work study program, $3,200 from the family, and the rest from grants and donations. Note that we need to clarify if all students qualify for this rate or if some do not qualify for the grants and donations since the Globe ref states "Families are charged $2,900, but most receive financial aid covered by a mix of grants and donations" (emphasis mine, and the $2,900 value presumably differs from the curren t$3,200 because this ref is from 2015).

I still think the details of the work-study program would be better covered in the Cristo Rey program article. Meters (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

But then you could argue that the details of the program in general do not apply to this school, since each school sets up its own specific tuition. The critical factor to be recognized here is that Cristo Rey schools are created precisely to serve students who would not otherwise be able to afford a university education. Why must we conceal the details of what this means at a given school? Jzsj (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the tuition information is useful in this article. Did you read what I wrote, or are you just arguing that anything other than your preferred version is unacceptable? And please don't try to shoehorn other issues in. This thread is about the work-study program details that were removed, not about whether the article should discuss what you consider the purpose of all Cristo Rey schools. Meters (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a fulsome coverage of "Facts that clarify the program" as necessary to support the need for the school to be explicitly categorized as a "Poverty-related organization". I appreciate your willingness to clarify the tuition issue but I don't see why readers should have to go to another article to find out how the program works. Jzsj (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We already have an open RFC (started by you) on the issue of whether the school should be categorized as a "Poverty-related organization". It is not appropriate to attempt to re-argue that issue here. Meters (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Plain puffery and promotion. As is is a school, it is enough to add that part of their program is to provide training-jobs. And not all the details. The Banner talk 09:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please review the documentation on the Cristo Rey Network, where you learn that the original purpose was not to provide job training but to earn money to subsidize their education. Jzsj (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, this thread is not about the original purpose of the Cristo Rey network schools. Meters (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The original purpose remains very much a factor in the existence of each Cristo Rey school. The network subsidized a feasibility study (p. 375) on whether Notre Dame Cristo Rey would qualify for its Network before the school was founded. Jzsj (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet again, this thread is not about the original purpose of the Cristo Rey schools or network. You asked about including specific wording about the work program, and we answered you. Your suggested wording says nothing about any original purpose for the the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 23:04, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

• • The Banner, "it is enough to add that part of their program is to provide training-jobs"?!?! This isn't the hour-or-two per week kind of job / internship program offered by a small handful of schools. This is a comprehensive part of the curriculum, where students spend 20% of their time in a job that covers the overwhelming majority of the cost of tuition. That's a fact that's covered by the Boston Globe in an article about the program and one that distinguishes it from most other schools. By "puffery" do you mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Alansohn (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • No, with "puffery" I mean that it is blown out of proportion, like Cotton candy to a scoop of sugar. The whole article and the discussion on this page is really looking like a marketing campaign to advertise the school. It is not a neutral article, in style and tone, describing the school. The over-reliance on related sources is worrying. It need far more independent, reliable sources to back up the article. The Banner talk 08:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• I fear that if you cannot accept the sourcing here then neither can you accept the sourcing for most all schools that do not have a fan club in book writers or in the local press, as I explained above: I suggest that the Boston Globe article, that clarifies the nature of all (and of this) Cristo Rey schools, has at least as much standing in Wikipedia as the Pleasanton Weekly which is referenced 34 times in the article on the featured school Amador Valley High School. Jzsj (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Note that Jeb Bing who wrote many of these Pleasanton Weekly articles was the founder and editor of this "community newspaper". Other Amador Valley High School references cited to the Weekly are "unattributed" and presumably sourced to the school itself. Jzsj (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article is already cited in the Notre Dame Cristo Rey article. No one is denying that it is a reliable source. 32.218.34.170 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Then why the revert of some material sourced to it, followed by the reference on sourcing, at the top of #Well sourced material that was reverted above? Jzsj (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't ask me. I'm the one who restored some of it. 32.218.34.170 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, excessive pointing at other articles as an excuse to add promo is one of the hallmarks of an marketeer. The Banner talk 18:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note my quote (at 4 February 2018) of the Wikipedia policy that featured schools "are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." What I am interested in ascertaining here is whether the promo by some from the Schools Project is a personal promo or necessitated by (and properly referenced to) the Schools Project. Jzsj (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Campus ministry program

John from Indegon It's not clear why you reverted the following credible info sourced to the school's website. I propose it be restored:

Campus ministry

Students all make a one-day retreat each year and an over-night retreat in their senior year. Juniors and seniors are given the opportunity to make a three-day Kairos retreat. Students also participate in several community service projects. Jzsj (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

If this article were about a British school, this would be written "The school runs various school trips and community service projects." MPS1992 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In short, if it isn't important enough for someone other than sources connected to the school to write about, it isn't important enough to include. Again, this smacks of PR, not knowledge. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Students do public service and may go on school trips. Nothing particularly unusual about that. Its a religious school so one of the trips is a multi-day religious retreat, which is a bit different. I wouldn't object to mentioning it if there is an independant reliable source and a significant proportion of the eligible students attends, otherwise this is PR material that does not belong on Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I question your position that activities that are mentioned on the school's website might not be included in the Wikipedia article. The extent of spiritual and service activities does clarify the religious philosophy of the school. Why all the emphasis on sports activities (that don't say much about a school) and exclusion of significant non-sports activities. I note that on Chassell Township School that @John from Idegon: created on 2017-01-18, the only reference to the sports sponsored by the school is to Chassell Township Schools District (given as the school's website) that runs this as its only school. Jzsj (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It is common to use sources who are independent (not in any way related to the subject) and reliable (no social media). The school website is by no means independent.

To ask a nasty question: how far are you involved in the Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School? I get the idea that there is a Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 13:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anyone at the school and I've never been there. This discussion from the start has been about the Schools Project interpretation and toughening of Wikipedia's general principles and guidelines, bereft of the "common sense" approach which would understand that criteria should not be toughened for schools that will never join the six such schools that are presently in the featured school listing. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for this larger issue involved here.) Jzsj (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in my opinion the way you sound and act makes me think of a marketing department. The Banner talk 13:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:The Banner Perhaps the question was too specific. The editor may not know anyone at this school or ever have been there, but that does not preclude a conflict of interest. Since the Cristo Rey Network is a Jesuit organization, and the editor has stated that he is a Jesuit priest and that he edits mainly on Jesuit institutions there may be a conflict of interest, and it seems a reasonable question to ask under WP:APPARENTCOI. The persistence in attempting to get his desired changes accepted is a possible sign of a COI.

I don't know if simply being a Jesuit priest constitutes a conflict of interest in all things Jesuit. That would probably have to go to COIN, but let's deal with the smaller question. User:Jzsj do you have a conflict of interest wrt to the Cristo Rey Network? You have been pointed to WP:COI more than once and have stated that you are familiar with its contents, so you know that I am not merely asking if you are (or were) involved with the Cristo Rey Network yourself. Meters (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me add that even if User:Jzsj doesn't, strictly speaking, have a conflict of interest (e.g., not a paid editor, doesn't know anyone in the organization, etc.), being a cheerleader for anything and everything Jesuit does represent having an agenda that qualifies as WP:ADVOCACY. 32.218.44.111 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with 32 here. He has self identified as a person with a connection to Catholicism and is editing tendentiously on articles associated with Catholic education. One can have a connection even a close one with a subject and not be a COI editor; just as much, someone can have a weak connection to a subject and edit in a completely conflicted mannor, like we have here. It's behavioral, not structural. John from Idegon (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY is an explanatory essay. It has not been vetted by the administration and it is not a Wikipedia rule. The pertinent rule here is WP:SOAP. If we have evidence that some editor is using Wikipedia to promote their ideology and/or beliefs about something, let's have it. Until then, we should assume good faith on their part. A contributor may indeed be biased in the positions they take in Wikipedia, e.g. in an RfC, but that in itself does not constitute conflict of interest. Being biased is not the same thing as having a conflict of interest. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

While my Catholicism is a motive for my working on Catholic articles, I do not fear that Christians will force their views on Wikipedia; and I note that a far larger number categorize themselves as atheistic than as Christian. I am not judging the religious intent of any editor but rather the overall impact of the part of their work that I have observed. I have to be concerned, for sake of religious neutrality, that the main issues we disagree on have religious overtiones: religious post-nominals, the mission and purpose of those taking on a work, and the favoring of sports over other activities on websites, where sports are religiously neutral.

I try to give specific references for my positions. I ask that you do the same and reference what part of the COI page excludes me from editing Catholic articles. Jzsj (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question. Again, do you have a conflict of interest wrt to the Cristo Rey Network? Meters (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No. I seek only to present the truth about this organization in the Wikipedia way. In my view this discussion will have to broaden to have all perspectives represented, to create a better article. Jzsj (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The question about a potential conflict of interest has been asked and Jzsj responded that he has no relation to Cristo. (In the same context, we must acknowledge his honesty and openness about his religious beliefs.) Only the question of bias can be raised but, to do this, one would have to back it up with evidence; the contributor's positions in the various discussions he has taken part do not constitute by themselves a reason for censure. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[User:The Gnome]] That appears to be in response to my question, and I see no reason for it. I asked a polite question five days ago, based on WP:APPARENTCOI. It was answered three days ago, and I've made no comment on any possible COI since. In fact, no-one has commented, on anything, in this thread since Jzsj gave his response, except for you. Going further, no-one has commented on any possible COI by Jzsj on this talk page outside of this thread, except User:Drmies in his role as an uninvolved admin reviewing this page, and a response by user:BillHPike, in which he said "I don't think being a retired priest is an automatic conflict of interest for editing articles about Catholic schools". If there's any lack of AGF here it appears to be on your part towards those of us who were discussing a possible COI and have accepted Jzsj 's reply. Meters (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Activities

John from Indegon It's not clear why you reverted the following credible info sourced to the school's website. I propose it be restored:

Activities

A select group from the students act as Student Ambassadors, assisting at school activities, helping recruit freshmen, and representing the school to the public. Jzsj (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Can you think of any high school in the world where some students do not assist at school activities or represent the school to the public? MPS1992 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Schools where students do not assist in school activities?!? Literally hundreds of thousands around the world. Presumable, you are thinking strictly of schools in relatively well off and/or orderly communities and/or countries. Unfortunately, that would be far from typical of the world we live in. As to students recruiting freshmen, I find that atypical even in the context of advanced, western societies. Ergo, the above sentences, which appears to be contested, probably contain useful information (although we should improve the language); that's all there is to it. I could not care less (we should not care at all) if some people take it for "religious propaganda" and are "offended"; that would be strictly their problem. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with MPS1992. Further, we are not here to report on what the school says about itself. Excepting indisputable facts that serve only to inform and are not available elsewhere, we should not be using sources tied to the school. They have their webpage to communicate what they want. An encyclopedia is constructed of information paraphrased from reliable independent sources. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing of note here. The wikipedia page is not the school's webpage and should not repeat this type of PR material. Meters (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need to do here is to focus on the added task of student ambassadors in a Cristo Rey School where there's the difficult task of identifying thirteen-year-olds who will be able to hold a job in a corporation: it is notable that the school depends on its best students to assist with this task. Jzsj (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The consensus in all these discussions is clearly that for any content other than bare indisputable facts, any and all content needs independent sources. What we need to do is focus on making source based arguments rather than these pointless rhetorical arguments. They are rarely persuasive, and it's abundantly clear they will not be here. One editor is simply filibustering, wasting multiple other editor's time. Further, OTHERSTUFF is rarely a persuasive argument either. And considering you've taken (completely out of context, I might add) edits I and I alone have made, it's bordering on WP:STALKING and needs to stop now. But for the school in Northern Michigan, a reliable secondary source is readily available to source most of the content (MHSAA.COM) and the reason I chose the school source was that their hockey team, likely the most important part of the topic, is a coop team with another school and MHSAA lists coop teams under the school that employs the coach. Newspaper sources are available that can verify that. And you should look VERY closely at TVCS. I have a declarable conflict of interest on that article as my son attends that school. I haven't declared it because there is no copy in it that is challengable from a NPOV view. But considering we've been arguing with one editor who happens to be a Jesuit priest about this article about a Jesuit school for three weeks now with little significant support, I cannot say the same is true here. Well it is now, but the editor who has the conflict is the one pushing the poorly sourced POV content and is the one wasting other editor's time with pointless rhetorical arguments. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note the freedom with which featured schools use their own websites to reference long sections on their activities, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Examples from featured schools. While the discussion on this page arose because of gross reverts without any detailed referencing, the perspective that has been defended by those who are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools can impact all school articles and should be settled before such restrictive criteria are applied to all school articles. Jzsj (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Historical background

Some of the discussion above has dealt with whether the mission of this school is indeed poverty-related. Sending readers to the Cristo Rey Network page is unhelpful since, while the Network can explain its purpose overseen by its board, the claim is best exemplified by evidence from the articles of each school in the network. To do this I added entirely new material to the article on the historical background of the founding of Cristo Rey in Lawrence, material that clearly lays out the poverty-related purpose of the school. This was reverted with insistence that the new material be discussed here. And so for the sake of discussion I reproduce below the material that was reverted.

(Proposed addition)

Lawrence is an old mill town experiencing financial problems, with one of the highest poverty rates in Massachusetts (29.2%). In 2011 this would lead to the unprecedented takeover of the whole, “chronically underachieving” Lawrence public school district by the state.

The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur have as their central mission to work “with and among people living in poverty”.They turned to the Cristo Rey work-study model of schools, that had originated in 1996 with Cristo Rey Jesuit High School in Chicago to give disadvantaged students a better chance at a college education. In 2004 the sisters opened the seventh school in the Cristo Rey Network, with start-up money from the Cassian foundation, who also subsidized the feasibility studies that preceded the founding of Cristo Rey schools.^[1]

References

(End of proposed addition) – Jzsj (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC) improved book footnote 14:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

>>NOTE: Proposed addition above was changed by Jzsj after several editors had already commented on it. 32.218.44.111 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I did so according to the directives at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments, as explained in the note given at the changes and footnoted to below.^[2] The only change was to substitute the specs and ISBN directly instead of through the listing on the publisher's website. The reference was always to a page in the book and not to the website itself. Jzsj (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You can stop your misrepresentations now. Your original proposal included a citation to an advertisement for a book, not to the book itself. After comments were made about citing to an ad, you changed your proposal to cite the book. You have been warned about this very tactic numerous times before (e.g., 1, 2, 3). 32.218.44.111 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to admit that the original reference, still appearing above, was to a page in the book, identified through its publisher's website. I did not use the promotion of the program from the book ad which had been previuosly cited since I was citing only a page from the book. Jzsj (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, because the page history clearly shows that you cited an ad, not a book. 32.218.36.244 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTHESIS and off topic for this article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 09:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I have expressed my concerns about advertising earlier and this is another case of it. The Banner talk 09:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The history of the Lawrence public schools is irrelevant to this article.
2. The mission of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, an international community, is irrelevant to this article about a single school in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
3. The 60 Minutes report is about the Chicago Cristo Rey school, not the Lawrence one.
4. The one-paragraph ad for More than a Dream does not support the assertion that precedes the citation: that the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur opened the Lawrence school in 2004 with funding from the Cassian Foundation.^[3]
5. More than a Dream is about the Chicago school, not the Lawrence one.^[4]
6. The ad for More than a Dream is not a reliable source.^[5]

I concur with BillHPike that the proposed paragraphs are off-topic and WP:SYNTHESIS. 32.218.40.108 (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

And I concur with both Bill and 32. It's beginning to smell like the color nine. Beam me up, Scottie. John from Idegon (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary for the distinction between synthesis and summary. In line with that, "it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception".
Also find at that page the statement "Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article". How does giving background, that explains the very apparent reason for the founding of the school, not improve our understanding of the school, more than any mission statement of the school, or of the Cristo Rey Network, could do? Jzsj (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that your quote is talking about "improving" the article. I hope you have noticed that some editors here are not convinced that your edits are improvements. The Banner talk 15:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

^ Thanks for pointing out the reference to the book's publisher. I struck out that reference and referenced the book itself, using Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. If it does not help to reference this note after your comments referring to the previous footnote, then please remove this note after your comments. Observe that from the start the reference was to a page in the book (q.v.) and not to any advertisement. Jzsj (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As to #1 above, if the public schools were in great shape, one might be skeptical of the sisters' motive in founding a Cristo Rey school.
As to #2 above, this is background which is corroborated by the other data and references in the article.
As to #3 above, the Chicago school is the archetype of the model that the other schools in the Network have imitated. Jzsj (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

#1 Whenever an article hints at casual relationship for historic events, it must include references that explicitly make the link. For example, academic sources have sated Franklin Road Academy was founded because of the desegregation of Nashville public schools, so it is appropriate to include some background about that issue.

#2 The religious order’s affiliation with the school is appropriate for the article. However, Wikipedia generally avoid publishing mission statements unless the statement itself has received significant coverage in third party sources. Since this article is not about Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, their mission statement is neither germane nor adequately sourced.

#3 The 60 Minutes piece is a great source the articles on the Cristo Rey Network and the Chicago school, but has little relevance to this article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus already established on this talk page that the Loyola Press book is not usable as a source on this article. There is also a clear consensus that in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS, the only use connected non-independent sources have is to reference incontrovertible facts. Clearly, the website of the order that founded the school is a connected source. It, like most non-journalistic websites, fails RS. The 60 Minutes bit is not about this school and again, there is a clear consensus already established on this talk page that wider discussion of Cristo Rey will not be included. Discussion of the city or its economy is off topic, and what you constructed is most certainly SYNTH. I don't think there is anything else left. John from Idegon (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia issues are not settled by nose count but by arbitration, ultimately getting impartial administrators involved. Please do not misrepresent the facts: the Jesuits do not run most of the schools in the Cristo Rey Network. Neither do they run the Network, as can be determined from the listing of the board, where only three of the 21 members belong to religious orders. This can easily be determined from the post-nominals there, which you have characterized above as alphabit soup and crap. I hope you'll reconsider your position on these as I'll soon be raising the issue on the Schools Project Talk Page, though I doubt it will end there.

Your understanding of synthesis will also need to be challenged, on the basis of the Wikipedia page cited above.

Even here on this page dominated by only our few voices, the 60 minutes bit received some support for inclusion. Jzsj (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration is a last resort for content disputes. I would urge you to review the declined arbitration requests before asking ARBCOM to review this matter. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: I acknowledge your freedom to change your view on inclusion of 60 minutes, from what you said earlier on this page. I have changed my conclusion on the category "poverty-related organizations", after a bit of my own research. I would ask that you give specific refereces in Wikipedia guidelines for your statements: I would be quick to change my position if the evidence seemed conclusive, which I do not see as the case here. (This would not exclude my freedom to advocate for the change of informal guidelines.) Jzsj (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj: For #1, you noted it was important to discuss the state of the public school system because "if the public schools were in great shape, one might be skeptical of the sisters' motive in founding a Cristo Rey school." No reliable source has questioned the sister's motive, so there is not need to include a rebutal to such questions. For #2, see WP:MISSION. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Protection

The article is now protected against editing for the next week. That prevent complications as editing again consensus, edit wars etcetera. We can now solely concentrate on the discussion what should be in the article and what should be left out. Maybe harsh to do it this way, but I think this is in the best interest of the article. The Banner talk 17:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem as all attempts to improve the article were quickly reverted. Hopes are that in a week reverters will be more distinguishing. Jzsj (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think their views on advertising, promo and irrelevancy will not change. Ever. The Banner talk 22:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Schools Project goals as evidenced here

The implementation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Project goals, under the leadership of the chief contributor to the project and two very supportive administrators (henceforth SP), is evidenced in the editing of this Notre Dame Cristo Rey article. I question whether it is the statement or its implementation that is evidenced here. The statement of the goals is:
Project goals
This project aims to improve the quality of school-related articles. Articles within the scope this project should become far more substantial than stubs, and ultimately match the quality of featured articles. By their nature, school articles are often targets for vandalism and promotional claims. Editors are asked to be as helpful as possible in removing irrelevant, inappropriate, or unsourced content.

I suggest that holding all school articles to featured article standards, as interpreted here by SP, is more likely to return the articles to near stubs, without clear support of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I conclude that SP have revealed their meaning of “irrelevant, inappropriate, or unsourced content” on this Talk Page, and it has led to controversy with the few unaffiliated editors who have found this page. I enumerate here the changes that SP have supported and question how these changes have improved the quality of this article:

• Removal from the infobox of pre-nominals and post-nominals of the president (though they are a succinct indication of the present leadership of the school. SP also “hatted” a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Common sense in applying featured school criteria, though I'd pointed out that the vague directive in their guidelines is being used to justify the removal here, and so the very guideline should be clarified.).
• Insistence that a separate section and listing be used for demographics (though, as explained above, small sections and also listings are to be avoided where possible.)
• Refusal to acknowledge the “Category: Poverty-related organization” designation on the page of every school in the network, (This would be a succinct and proper way to explicitly confirm their purpose.)
  
• Removal of a background section that confirms the purpose of the school and the mission of the Sisters who founded it. (Confirming the purpose and mission of the school is essential to understanding its founding and its work-study program.)
  
• Inclusion of activities that characterize the school, like the retreat and voluntary project programs and the Ambassadors program which sends exemplary students out seeking good prospects for the school. (Finding students in the inner-city who will succeed in the work-study program and make it through the four years requires all the collaboration the administrators can muster; and activities that clarify the spiritual mission of the school need to be included.)
  
• Details of how the work study program works, with some specifics from this school, are useful in fleshing out the school's program better than any link to Cristo Rey Network can do.
  
• Bibliographical material that has relevance to this school, and that we should not have to go to another article to discover. (The 60 minutes report and the More than a Dream book have statements relevant to this school and should be furnished as bibliography here.)
  

I look forward to a constructive discussion of the intentions of these editors as interpreted or misinterpreted from their submissions on this talk page. Jzsj (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Shall we start with discussing your intentions and why you think that relevant guidelines and policies should not be applicable to this article? The Banner talk 20:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I am most open to your referencing relevant policies and guidelines, but most referencing has been vague or has led to the statements I make above: "I question whether it is the statement or its implementation that is evidenced here." "I suggest that holding all school articles to featured article standards, as interpreted here by SP, is more likely to return the articles to near stubs, without clear support of Wikipedia policy and guidelines." And I "question how these changes have improved the quality of this article." Jzsj (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Better stubs than advertising. The Banner talk 22:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a dinky little school. It's low priority for all three project's that watch it. It averages less than 20 page views a month. It has less than thirty watchers. Contrary to one editor's malinformed opinion, administrators do not decide content. The arbitration committee does settle some content disputes in high profile articles. This is not a high profile article. DM is available, but would be no use here as there is one and only one reason things are not getting settled here. ONE editor is refusing to accept consensus. It has nothing to do with a specific project or its "main editor", and everything to do with WP:IDHT. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion at WP:THIRDOPINION. I think it would be usefull to have an univolved editor comment on our citations to Wikipeida policy. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Third opinions are not provided when there is an open RFC BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

3O is generally only used in a dispute between 2 editors. It's worth noting that The Banner is not an active editor of school articles and I do not believe even belongs to WP:WPSCH. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

True. The Banner talk 00:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have put in 10-14 hours most days for almost 4 years now, much of it creating and referencing school articles. I live in hope, that independent administrators will step in to arbitrate should we come to a stalemate on some issues here. Jzsj (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no stalemate, your "issues" are plain rejected The Banner talk 01:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, and please, show me what policy or guideline says different, administrators do not settle content disputes. You are welcome, no excuse me, encouraged to invite as many administrators as you'd like into this mess. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Jzsj, I'm just another admin, and a former arb (and I can tell you that arbs are probably not interested in this at all), and I cannot understand why this should not be governed by the regular school guidelines. I'll tell you also that if this conflict, if that is what it is, is brought to a higher level you will be very sad very soon, since it is obvious that your edits go against consensus and are deemed influenced by a clear COI. I have not yet looked at the article history (this talk page is long enough already), but I suspect that I may find evidence there of editing against consensus. In other words, I do not think you should want to escalate this. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think being a retired priest is an automatic conflict of interest for editing articles about Catholic schools. Since the Catholic church is such a vast organization, I think Jzsz can continue to edit Catholic related topics as long as he stays away from any specific organizations he is directly affiliated with. I think it is similar to how, for example, we let employees of one US government agency edit articles about unrelated government agencies. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about retired priests--I am saying "are deemed" because that's what I'm seeing on this talk page. Nor did I say anything about "Catholic schools". I am commenting on what I see editors say on this topic, about this editor. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me where any of the seven proposals which I made above go against expressed "regular school guidelines". There have been very few precise references to these guidelines in all their reversions. A critical question here is whether there has been a broad enough base for consensus on any of these seven issues. @Drmies: Jzsj (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about your edits. I'm not talking about this set of seven proposals or the seventy other proposals on this talk page. Individually, each of them may well be fine. Taken together, who would want to work on this article with you? "A broad enough base"--that is not a question for me. And I will tell you something else: more wikilawyering and obfuscating is just going to lead to someone taking you to ANI or to WP:COIN to request a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

An attempt at getting something accomplished here

The easy one

Please add the category under discussion in the above RfC. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Should be easy" one

As the question of titles and post-nominals has been taken up elsewhere per the consensus here, can we please not bring that issue up on this page again unless or until some resolution has been made elsewhere? Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Is there anything which needs to be changed in the article? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ll support adding post-nominals if and only if MOS:POSTNOM is updated to reflect a new community consensus. Until then, this talk page is the wrong forum for such discussions. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing needed here, Callanecc. I believe Bill restated my position nicely in this subsection, and it's fine by me to either wait for protection to expire or for Bill to write the change and make a new edit request below. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Another "Should also be easy" one

It appears we have a consensus to change the presentation of the demographics to prose from a list. Billhpike, since the version that it appears we agree on was yours, could you make an edit request in this section for it? Note that whether or not to include anything else can remain an open question and we can take it up below. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is probably a change best done once the protection expires, as it's unlikely an admin could write it through protection in an uncontroversial way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly think that this change needs to be made, but I don't object to wording proposed above. Since Rhadow has expressed some concerns about this below, I think it's best to wait. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

How to re-rail this train wreck

Ok, we've got one thing resolved. Progress, yay!

I'm going to make a rather radical suggestion: I think we're so far off the rails this discussion cannot be salvaged. So I'm going to ask everyone involved here, (and I'll ping everyone who commented outside the RfC, which is now closed, in my next edit) to indicate by simply stating yes or no, if they can agree to the following:

This discussion is unmanageable at this point. So we can move forward in a productive fashion, I agree to the following ground rules:

1. Everything above the section immediately proceeding this one, titled "An attempt to get something accomplished here", shall be considered closed and immediately archived. Whomever set up the autoarchiving should manually do that.
2. Moving forward, we shall only discuss one issue at a time, in a section titled with the appropriate section title in the article currently that the content belongs in. The editor wanting the content change should begin the discussion.
3. Completely new content should be held until we work through the disputes on the old content.
4. Proper talk page structure and etiquette shall be followed at all times by all parties. Please keep all comments sequential and indent properly. Other than correcting minor issues that do not affect the content of the message, do not change a message at all after it is posted. If you must, write it first elsewhere and proof yourself prior to posting. If your position changes after you've made your comment, strike what no longer applies in your old comment and state your new position in a new comment added in sequence.
5. All parties shall do their best to be as brief and concise as possible. We all have lives to lead.
6. We will avoid the classic arguments to avoid, such as appeals to emotion (WP:ILIKEIT) and presidence (WP:OTHERSTUFF).
7. All proposals for content shall contain exact proposed wording, with fully formatted references.

• I'd strongly suggest we start with demographics, as we have a partial resolution there already.

Pings to follow. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging Drmies (Just looking for a methodology endorsement from you, as an uninvolved administrator), Jzsj, Meters, Billhpike, The Banner, Alansohn, Marchjuly, Cullen328, MPS1992, Rhadow, and I'm sure 32.218 will notice this as you cannot ping an IP. John from Idegon (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate yes, you can agree with the above guidelines, or no, you can't, below:

• Yes John from Idegon (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• A very cautious yes as I have no clue who to solve this in another way except escalating and blocking. The Banner talk 10:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I will live by the seven. Rhadow (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, John’s proposals represent best practices for any talk page discussion on a contentious matter. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• A cautious Yes in principle as it's unclear how we deal with the situation where #2 is upended when some editor changes the topic midstream or #5 is violated when someone comments with pages of quoted policy. Is there any way to get a neutral moderator for this discussion? 32.218.42.122 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• A categorical NO because--haha I'm just messing with you. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Not normal talk page procedure to list all this, but this is no longer a normal talk page. In the last month the talk page has ballooned to something like 35 times the size of the actual article. Meters (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes while expressing my concern about what I see as increasingly tendentious and disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes if #2 allows that the sectioning may change. For instance the present "Demographics" section might take on material about the historical context and background of Lawrence, and include other factors that are indicative of the purpose of the school. Jzsj (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the general possibility of material being moved between sections where it make sense, I doubt very much that a strong case could be made for discussing "the historical context and background of the school's founding" in the demographics section. The demographics section should discuss the current makeup of the student population. Any historical context related to demographics would likely be better discussed in the history section. Meters (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

edit conflicted. Jzsj changed "of the school's founding" to "of Lawrence, and include other factors that are indicative of the purpose of the school" while I was responding. Even more against this change. The purpose of the school does not belong in the demographics section. Meters (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the name "Demographics" section may change as it takes on new material or the revised material may be included in another section, like that presently entitled "History". Jzsj (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Even a history-section will only give the history of the school. Not the history of the town nor the history of the CR-movement. (Although they can tough it provide a background, the full story belongs to another article.) The Banner talk 10:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we do not need the whole history of Lawrence here, only what is relevant to explaining why a Cristo Rey school was founded here, and what supports statements on the nature and purpose of the school. Jzsj (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That last part "what supports.." might not even be necessary when the rest is properly sourced. The Banner talk 11:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have an issue with how the sections are organized, then per #2, propose it as a change to the article. Please do not change the topic in the middle of a talk page section. This section is about talk page rules of order. It is not the place to discuss changes in the article. Start a new section for that. 32.218.36.219 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the archived material in accord with the guideline: "Ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact". I contend that everything above remains very relevant to the ongoing discussion. Jzsj (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the fundamental issue in this dispute?

If we identify the underlying cause of argument, the details should fall into place easily.

• Demographics of the group at risk for dropping out of high school and being unprepared for college (university).
• Religious energy being put into the effort
• Pedagogical approach of combining work and study
• Sponsorship and support by large NGOs

There is no reason to suspect that a primarily Hispanic population would do any better or worse than any other group as a result of grouping, unless the grouping came from being excluded from other better funded options. This is not the case here. In the case of historically black schools, the ones that voluntarily organized themselves that way, they have shown success. The demographics as currently described in the article are well referenced. NCES is an authority, even if it is a primary source. I suggest that the demographics section be left as it is, without further discussion of the demographics of Lawrence. An interested reader can click Lawrence, Massachusetts if she wishes. She may draw her own conclusions.

In my view, there is nothing inherently controversial about the religious sponsorship of the school, as long as it is explained as a national effort, rather than locally-managed, as has been the tradition for parochial Catholic schools. The reference to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston in the lede is irrelevant, unless there is a documented conflict between it and the Cristo Rey Network. I suggest that the article have a History section, and one for Organization. Discussion of Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur and the financial support of the network go there. The list of network schools is inappropriate in this article; I am glad to see it go. It belongs in Cristo Rey Network.

The pedagogical approach of work-study is a recognized approach, having worked well at the university level, since 1898 notably at Northeastern University. At the high school level, most school districts provide an occupational course, although it is not oriented to putting kids into college. The topic is worhty of a section. It is what distinguishes the Cristo Rey method.

Sponsorship of the school method and its parent organization is likely to evoke controversy. This I believe is best taken up in Cristo Rey Network and not in this article about a particular school. Teachers' unions have an axe to grind where non-union workplaces are concerned. Some have an autonomic response against any initiative backed by Betsy DeVos. That's fine, but that discussion belongs elsewhere, perhaps in Cristo Rey Network. I suggest that mention of the network go into Organization, then refrain from further discussion in this article.

I realize that my approach is likely to displace the remaining controversy to Cristo Rey Network, but I believe it to be appropriate. What do you all think? Rhadow (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

How about if we stick with ground rule #2 above: one issue at a time, with issues to be identified by the editor seeking changes to the article? 32.218.42.122 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I propose that we accept the demographics section as is. Rhadow (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

History

Proposal 1

I propose the following for lede and History. I propose that the Demographics section be unchanged from its current form.

Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is a small, private, Roman Catholic high school serving 274 students in Lawrence, Massachusetts. It follows the Cristo Rey Network work-study model.

== History ==

Notre Dame Cristo Rey was founded in 2004 by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. Lawrence Massachusetts is a community with a large Hispanic immigrant population.

The Cristo Rey Network work-study model is designed for students who might otherwise not go on to receive a college education. Student earnings cover sixty percent of their tuition. The school operates independently of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

In 2006, the sisters launched a $5 million renovation effort for their 100-year-old building, with renovations completed in 2009. In 2011, the school received accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

References

We will need consensus before an administrator allows this change to be made. Please indicate your approval or propose an alternative. In the absence of feedback, I will assume that all the involved editors like the current wording. Rhadow (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I inserted {{reflist-talk}} into your comment. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• No. First, the (unsourced, but accurate) statement about the demographic make up of the community is not on point. Unless there is a secondary source that discusses that the community's demographics had some bearing on the sister's decision to locate here, I don't see it as on point to the article at all. Second, the second paragraph is not on point to history at all. The detail is confusing, as it makes it sound like the work study program generates money for the students' college tuition. Further, without references (and about the only sources I can see working would be published academic studies), I strongly object to any language tying this educational model to matriculation to higher education. The lede doesn't need to have demographics info but does need grades served, and the bit about independence from the archdiocese could be there. The first sentence and last paragraph would be fine for history. John from Idegon (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Partial agreement: Since your proposal here affects also the Demographics section, I propose the following additional background in the History section to take the place of the Demographics section. It would also obviate into the future the huge questioning evidenced above as to the poverty-related purpose of the school and the purpose of the SNDN sisters.
  

The Manual of Style mentions: “Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs.” And on layout it mentions: “Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.” In line with this I propose that the demographics situation in Lawrence be presented as flowing text in the History section, as given below.

Proposal 2

== History ==

Lawrence Massachusetts is an old mill town experiencing financial problems, with one of the highest poverty rates in Massachusetts (29.2%). In 2011 this would lead to the unprecedented takeover of the whole, “chronically underachieving” Lawrence public school district by the state. It is a community with a large Hispanic immigrant population. Of the 274 students enrolled at NDCR in 2015–2016, students of "Hispanic" (Latino) descent would constitute 90.1% of the student body, which reflects the racial mix of minorities in Lawrence.

The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur have as their mission to reach out to people, “particularly the most vulnerable and those living in poverty”. In Lawrence they turned to the Cristo Rey work-study model of schools, that had originated in 1996 with Cristo Rey Jesuit High School in Chicago, to give disadvantaged students a better chance at a college education. In 2004 the Religious sisters opened the seventh school of thirty-five (as of 2018) in the Cristo Rey Network, They received start-up money from the Cassian foundation, which also subsidized the feasibility studies that preceded the founding of Cristo Rey schools.

Student earnings from the work-study program cover sixty percent of their high school tuition. The school has approval, but no funding, from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

In 2006, the sisters launched a $5 million renovation effort for their 100-year-old building, with renovations completed in 2009. In 2011, the school received accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

References

Jzsj (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To hear from more voices on this, I've placed a neutral notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, another project, like the Schools project, which has some interest in this. Jzsj (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• If you mean "neutral notification" in the sense that "Donald Trump is a Communist", then that might be true. Once again, you are CANVASSING. I'm done trying to talk reasonably here with you. Besides your obvious COI, it is becoming clear that there are WP:CIR issues involved too. Pinging an uninvolved administrator pending preparation of an ANI case. John from Idegon (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • John from Idegon, I think the best course of action may be a topic ban, maybe on AN. It is pretty clear that there is a COI here, and anyone who looks at this very talk page, now at 155k, proves that we are making no progress. Does the editor have any support, any consensus for their many, many proposals? Isn't this all just stonewalling and wikilawyering? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not the one who has been stonewalling on these topics, but those who have failed to cite guidelines they are using to reject en masse all the proposals which I summarized at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Schools Project goals as evidenced here, which I summarize from there:

– Removal from the infobox of pre-nominals and post-nominals of the president

– Insistence that a separate section and listing be used for demographics

– Refusal to add “Category: Poverty-related organization” designation (RESOLVED)

– Removal of a background section on the purpose of the school and the mission of the Sisters

– Inclusion of activities that characterize the school, like the retreat and voluntary projects

– Details of how the work study program functions, with some specifics from this school

– Bibliographical material that has relevance to this school

I agree with John from Idegon's suggestion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#How to re-rail this train wreck and I'm trying to follow it. @Drmies: Jzsj (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• • • Thanks, Doc. I'll wait to see if anyone addresses your reply then proceed. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see it get to this point, but I have to agree. With the recent archive, in the last five weeks we've produced 185k of talk page discussions for the editor in question. The entire article is only 5k. This is not productive discussion. Meters (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a complete unwillingness to listen to other people in this discussion and other discussions when they have a different opinion. Again and again the same discussion is there and consensus ignored. We are hitting not a brick wall, but a bank fault. I see no other option to protect the encyclopedia than to escalate this case to AN/I. The Banner talk 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh ... I'm afraid I have to agree with this. Jzsj demonstrates a complete failure to understand what a neutral point of view is, cannot communicate without writing diatribes, and has demonstrated that he cannot be taken at his word. (Although he agreed to John from Idegon's proposed discussion guidelines, he won't discuss "one issue at a time" (#2), hasn't used distinct section titles for his proposal (#2), and has completely confused talk page structure by inserting his long-winded proposals into other sections (#4).) His completely undisciplined missives have proven to be disruptive to the operation and goals of this encyclopedia. 32.218.43.17 (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 3

To my opinion the history section can be quite short: Notre Dame Cristo Rey was founded in 2004 by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. In 2006, the sisters launched a $5 million renovation effort for their 100-year-old building, with renovations completed in 2009. In 2011, the school received accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.[2]. The rest is in fact irrelevant for the school as an institution. The Banner talk 19:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The Banner's proposed wording seems to cover what should be covered in this article. If readers want to know more about the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur or about Lawrence, Massachusetts and its school system, they can click on those links in the article. That's what links are for. 32.218.41.227 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree to this one also. Meters (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 4

My concern from the start of this talk page has been that if the School Project can put such limitations on this article (see 7 points just above), then it can reduce to this state all the other school articles, perhaps selectively.
Taking into consideration the discussion in this section and in the section below, I would propose this to replace the present "History" and "Demographics" sections:

Lawrence is an old mill town with a large Latino immigrant population, that has a very high poverty rate and a dysfunctional public school system. In 2004, the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, who state as their mission to serve the poor, opened a Cristo Rey school in Lawrence, to become the 7th of 35 schools to join the Cristo Rey Network which caters to low-income students who might otherwise not go on to receive a college education. Through a work-study program, students are placed with an outside employer to cover 60% of their high school tuition. Notre Dame Cristo Rey received start-up money from the Cassian foundation, which also subsidized the feasibility studies that preceded its founding.

In 2006 the sisters launched a $5 million renovation effort for their 100-year-old building, with renovations completed in 2009. In 2011 the school received accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

The demographic breakdown of the 274 students enrolled in 2015–2016 was 90.1% Latino, with the rest evenly divided between Black, White, Asian/Pacific islanders, and multiracial.A0501923 As of April 2017, 100% of NDCR's graduates had been accepted into four-year colleges and universities. In 2017-2018 the school had 73 Corporate Work Study Partners.

Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Jzsj, this is an effective compromise that addresses the concerns discussed in productive fashion. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support proposal for History section posted Feb. 20. I saw the neutral request for feedback at WP:CATHOLIC which by the way is entirely within policy per WP:APPNOTE. There is a WP:CATHOLIC banner at the top of this Talk page.– Lionel^(talk) 09:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• STRONGLY OPPOSE another example of when I do not get what I want, I just repeat the whole discussion and ignore the existing consensus. This is again a highly promotional and largely irrelevant piece, what is completely unsuitable. The Banner talk 10:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

May I bring to your attention WP:CCC. I find some limited background about the community and the Cristo Rey Network to be beneficial to our readers. WP:WINAC says "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no direct relevance to the article's topic." Yes it is an essay, but it is the basis for my support.– Lionel^(talk) 11:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the full talk page here? The Banner talk 17:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did read this Talk page. I see an editor who unfortunately is engaging in tendentious editing. I also see a group of editors exhibiting extraordinary patience. Now I have a question for you: did you read WP:CCC? – Lionel^(talk) 22:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I did. I am well aware that over time consensus can change. But this is not a case of changing consensus over a few years. This case is more about days. The Banner talk 23:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose The proposed text is neither a compromise nor does it address any of the concerns of other editors. It is a deceptively crafted text that could be the poster child for non-neutral point of view. The sentence about Lawrence is cherry-picked to present a slanted point of view and irrelevant to this article. The goal of an international religious order is also irrelevant to this article and presented only to portray a particular slant. Interested readers who want to know more about either the city or the order can click on the links. The demographics are obviously slanted to ignore any non-Hispanic ethnic groups. This is not the proper way to handle demographics. There is no justification for not naming all ethnicities. None whatsoever. 32.218.43.17 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

All ethnicities are named: they're just all around 5 or 6 students each out of 274 students and so exact percents are not needed. Since they change each year this is only an approximation of the present mix.

And as to the mention of the level of poverty in Lawrence, this obviates questioning like above at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Request for comment on categorizing Cristo Rey schools.

Please note that the mention of the Sisters' mission is not taken from their "international" website but from their USA website, which clearly indicates their present turn toward assisting the poor: "We reach out to people living in poverty and the most vulnerable in society. Education, broadly defined, is at the heart of our ministries." Jzsj (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: it's very disconcerting to see this edit [6] and accompanying editsum "restored history section as agreed upon on the talkpage" made while the content is under discussion and where no such "agreement" exists on Talk. We expect more from our veteran editors. I would like to caution Jzsj to not react in a way that could be considered edit warring and allow the consensus process to run its course.– Lionel^(talk) 23:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Please... read this section properly. Especially the edits of 16 February. The Banner talk 02:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for a close

• Note to participants: I have requested a close of this topic at WP:ANRFC. FWIW the !vote count is 3-2 in favor of the proposed addition.– Lionel^(talk) 03:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia doesn't vote; it operates on a consensus model. Second, I don't know where you dug up that 3-2 number. Here is what the above comments actually stated:

• Jzsj's original proposal (now labeled Proposal 1-2):

No - John from Idegon

No - The Banner

No - 32.x

• The Banner's proposal (Now labeled Proposal 3):

Yes - John from Idegon

Yes - 32.x

Yes - Meters

No - Jzsj

• Jzsj's second proposal (Now labeled Proposal 4):

Yes - Alansohn

Strong no - The Banner

Strong no - 32.x

In other words, of the four editors who expressed an opinion, only Alansohn agreed with Jzsj's proposals. 32.218.43.143 (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would ask the closer to review the all the discussion sections from the past 6 weeks, including the archive page. Much of the proposed verbiage has been discussed elsewhere on this page. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bill and 32, we're not going back 6 weeks. Per an overwhelming consensus Talk:Notre_Dame_Cristo_Rey_High_School#How_to_re-rail_this_train_wreck #1 "Everything above the section immediately proceeding this one, titled "An attempt to get something accomplished here", shall be considered closed." In any event going back is counter to the spirit of WP:CCC. – Lionel^(talk) 04:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, February 15-21 is not six weeks ago. 32.218.43.143 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of closing admin here is my exhaustive and comprehensive review of discernible support or opposition positions of participating editors on the 4 proposals as of Feb 22:

Proposal	Proposer	Support	Oppose	Notes
1	Jzsj	Jzsj	John	John's suggestion produced Proposal #2
2	Jzsj	Jzsj		No content discussion
3	Banner	Banner, 32, Meters
4	Jzsj	Jzsj, Lionel, Alansohn	Banner, 32

– Lionel^(talk) 05:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

First, there is no RFC for an administrator to close. Second, I do not in any way support version 2, or any other version above. Do not presume to speak for me. As 32 already pointed out this entire subsection is basically crap. John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant, just keep those proposals coming. Are we going to 25? This table alone is proof of how the discussion is frustrated by repeating proposals when the outcome is not in favour. The Banner talk 08:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Since Lionelt has taken it upon him or herself to summarize... add me to the support for The Banner's #3. And hence, if I have to choose one, I oppose the other proposals. I would be willing to compromise and consider some of the other information, but I'm tired of the WP:bludgeoning. Leave the demographics section separate, as is normally done,a and keep the history section short. Meters (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please give some evidence for your statement that the Demographics section is normally kept separate (contrary to the guidelines on avoiding short sections and preferring prose). And please mention what "other information" you would support so that we can move this forward. I too have better things to do. @Meters: Jzsj (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about whether demographic data should be in prose or a table. I think it's clearer in a table, but I don't particularly care and I thought that we had already dealt with that issue. What I don't agree to is moving general historical information into a demographics section, or current demographics into a history section.

There's no policy or guideline on where to present demographic information that I know of. It's my impression that in school articles where we present demographic information (usually obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics) the information is usually in a separate section.

No, I'm not going to give details about "other information". Any further proposals would just further fragment and prolong this already tedious and unproductive thread. I've stated elsewhere my willingness to move material between sections where it makes sense, but as I said above, I don't believe combining current demographics and history makes sense. Since there's a push to accept one of the proposals, I picked one.

I am tired of the constant bludgeoning, reopening, and rewording in an attempt to get your desired way, and your requests for information and citations. You admit that you knowingly violated the talk page rules we agreed to in an attempt to bring some semblance of order to this talk page. I no longer have any WP:AGF in your behaviour on this page. Meters (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The table is useful as a kind of sitemap as it were. But of course these are not votes and the only thing matters is the rationale behind the "vote." Point of clarification: WP:ANRFC is not just for RFC closure. It can be used to close any discussion where consensus is not clear. John is removed from Proposal 3, Meters is added to Proposal 3 per their wishes.– Lionel^(talk) 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So, Lionelt, since you are aware that this isn't a vote, why is it that you are the only one attempting to making the count, and going to the effort of tabling, and now updating, the results? Meters (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Third Party banner is not applicable

The article in its current form does not have any notability issues or neutrality issues with regard to sourcing. As a high school, it is presumed notable under the WP:US Schools. The demographics are from an outside educational statistics site, and the history draws primarily from a newspaper. The school's website is only used to list factual data, such as faculty and the name of the athletic team. The warning that the article relies too heavily on sources close to the subject is thus unwarranted. There is unlikely to be significant content needed for this article, as [the school] is not even two decades old. –Zfish118^⋉talk 07:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Very true! Jzsj (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• I will address all of my comments in this section. Because the school is a religious ministry, the nature of its mission (serve low income students), and how it accomplishes that mission (work-study) is relevant (see edit). The content is sourced from a newspaper that is unaffiliated with the institution; it is the third party that asserts the notability of the school's mission and means. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me be straight, mr. Zfish118, but did you ever read this talk page? Did mr. Jzsj invite you to edit here, against the consensus that he did not like? The Banner talk 20:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh. Probably here due to the canvassing at the Catholicism project, which was not even following this article when this debacle started. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I came here because of the "third-party" template, as seen by the title of this section in which I reviewed article on the basis of the template. I commented that the third-party template appeared unnecessary after verifying the bulk of the article came from neutral sources. I happen to agree with The Banner that the history section should be short by necessity, but disagree on the point that the school's mission and and tuition model are not encyclopedic. According to the third-party sources, namely the Boston Globe, it is specifically the the school's mission to serve low-income students that makes it notable. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This school is one of several dozen employing the same Cristo Rey Network model. If you read the voluminous discussion above, you'll see that the issue is not whether the model should be explained, but whether it should be explained in the Cristo Rey Network article, or in this and each of the other dozens of individual school models. 32.218.46.140 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that the generalization in the Network article is verified by the data in each school article, which also gives particulars of that school. Jzsj (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most info is irrelevant to the school and just plain advertising. Maybe in your personal view it is important, but after the extensive discussions here, something should finally dawn with you! The Banner talk 20:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This article uses 3 third party sources. Setting aside the infobox, half of the article uses these independent sources. Here are some of the items cited to primary sources:

• In 2017 Sr. Maryalyce Gilfeather, SNDdeN, was president of the school...
• Notre Dame High School is a member of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, competing...

There are the kinds of things that we have always sourced to primary sources with little to no incident. Should we find third party sources for content like this? Well, that is what that tag is mandating. The answer is no, thus we should remove the tag in question.– Lionel^(talk) 05:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected again

Due to failure to discuss and abide by consensus, now by both Jzsj and Zfish118, this article has been fully protected again. John from Idegon (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Please review my exact edits here I discussed every edit I made to this page. I edited only existing content to clarify what was already in the article. My edit was reverted with only the comment: "clean up, see talkpage". I read the talkpage, and the explanation to the reversion was that "To my opinion the history section can be quite short: Notre Dame Cristo Rey was founded in 2004 by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. ..." I disagreed, and explained why, and am now being accused of having some sort of agenda. Frankly, this seems like an extreme reaction. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you had read the talk page, you could have seen that your edits were at least controversial. If not against consensus. The Banner talk 00:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Status quo

One editor is black-balling consensus. Fine. We'll live with the article as written. The problem now is that the arguments are spreading to every article and forum however tangentially connected to this article. This is a waste of my time. Rhadow (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The "consensus" has a very small base and the "article as written" has been completely controlled by those who have opposed every improvement. This is not a waste of time but a test case of how reasonable improvement of an article might be achieved where a few editors seem to have turned hostile toward any improvement. Jzsj (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre, post nominals and Further reading

• Mentioning president in History: this should be restored [7]. This item provides the reader with the beginning of Sr. Maryalyce's tenure--the infobox does not.
• Further reading: I think this would be beneficial to the reader and should be restored [8] per MOS:FURTHER "publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." Learn about Cristo Rey and you learn about Notre Dame.
• Pre & Post nomials in infobox: this should be restored [9]. The policy cited, WP:CREDENTIAL is not applicable. Regarding the post-nomials these are not academic. MOS:POSTNOM says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization." The infobox is in the lead section. Thus the post-nominals are within policy. Regarding the "pre-nominal" "Sister" this is an honorific. MOS:HON says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name ... For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa." Now I'm not saying that Sr. Maryalyce is Mother Teresa, however she is referred to as "Sister" in reliable sources and we should do likewise. In any event there is enough latitude in MOS on this issue to settle this matter on this Talk page with WP:CONLIMITED. Unnecessary to change MOS:POSTNOM.
• Full disclosure: I am no fan of Jesuits.– Lionel^(talk) 10:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Loyola Press book was originally removed per policy from additional reading as it was being used as a reference. If it isn't being used as a reference, I have no objection to it being included in additional reading. I have no objection to mentioning the name of the school's founder in that context. That has never been an issue. The issue surrounding that is the promotional language one editor is insisting be inserted with it. The comparison of an everyday member of any religious order to famous saint is apples and oranges. The sister is completely identified by her name, and I argue that it is the intention of the MOS thought on all titles to avoid using titles which imply a special qualification as that is promotional. Mother Teresa is referred to as Mother Teresa because that is universally what sources refer to her as and it is the name by which she is completely known. The person mentioned above is NOT known as simply Sister Maryalyce, but is identified by her given name. I'd have no problem with identifying an historic member of an order by "Brother Tom" or "Sister May", but in the current world, most members of orders do not drop their last names anymore. And I agree that this could be settled here. However, if the majority of people oppose it because it seems to be in violation of MOS, welllllll......that would be a settlement of it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Why would you make these statements (1) " I have no objection to it [the book] being included in additional reading" and "I have no objection to mentioning the name of the school's founder" and then revert my edits after explicitly agreeing to the restorals? I'm really flabbergasted.– Lionel^(talk) 06:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would you consider the matter resolved simply because I agreed with you? It's very non productive. There is no consensus, you and I have simply agreed. Nothing is resolved and I've removed your very presumptuous insertion of a resolved template above. On the plus side, I think this does represent some progress. Meters, Billhpike, Rhadow (if you are out, please say so and we shouldn't ping you again), Alansohn, 32.218, Jzsj: can you agree to the following: We will use the Loyola Press book as an entry in an additional reading section, formatted in a cite book template (that's the usual way of adding a book to an additional reading section), given that if down the road we agree that if it is used as a source, it will be removed?

Lionelt, I in no way agreed to what you put in about the founder or president or whomever she is. I will not in any way agree to using titles or post nominal in this article anywhere unless or until it is indicated we should do so in MOS. I'm at a loss for how you think I indicated that. Consequently, I'm going to ask for indefinite full protection for this article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There was an RFC on updating MOS:POSTNOM at WT:WPSCH/AG, which is now under review at WP:AN. Until this and any subsequent RFCs are resolved, everyone should avoid adding any postnominals after names in this article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the book can be included in "Further reading" per the normal style (book citation). Also per the norm, an entry in "Further reading" would be one that was not duplicated in "External links" or used as a reference for material in the article. I mention this because this book was added in more than one place to this article and to multiple articles about other Critsto Rey schools.

As Billhpike points out, there is already a discussion on the issue of pre and postnominals. No-one should be adding them to this article or to any other similar article while this is under discussion.

As for mentioning the current president in the history section, I don't see the need to duplicate the information form the infobox, but I don't object to also including it in the "History" section. I don't understand Lionelt's claim that the "History" section mention provided the reader with the beginning of Sr. Maryalyce's tenure. It did not. It simply stated that "In 2017" Gilfeather was President. And for that matter, even this lesser claim was improperly sourced. The reference was accessed in 2018 so we cannot use it to support who the President was in 2017. As it was, we gained absolutely nothing by including the information in the "History" section rather than just in the infobox. Meters (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no good reason for excluding my reference to the book as I've proposed for the history section, so I would not move to have it added as "Further reading". I agree that a brief notice of the president's religious affiliation through "SND" in the infobox, linked to the congregation's article in Wikipedia, would be concise, clear, and in line with hundreds of instances elsewhere. Jzsj (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Postnominals

This talk page is a disaster. So there's a dispute over postnominals? And it's really about "SNDdeN"? The MOS section referred to (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Post-nominal_letters) discusses the lead, as far as I can tell, and in the aforementioned edit the lead wasn't involved, though the infobox was. The problem is that "SNDdeN" means nothing to most readers ("widely recognizable organization"--clearly not). Jzsj, why don't you make things easy and agree with dropping them from the infobox and instead saying "..., of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur," in the text. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This has never been just about this page but about not seeing all pre- and post-nominals as honorifics. A thorough discussion of this will be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals; I see no need to repeat it here. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening. But to answer your question, I would like to place this in the infobox mentioned above: Sr. Maryalyce Gilfeather, SND, with an explanation of the post-nominal also in the article. I agree that there is no argument against it at MOS, and these are not honorifics, but very common ways of briefly specifying the stable identity of the person, as is done in hundreds of school infoboxes; I agree they should be linked, as I just did. Jzsj (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You mention two recent discussions where you did not get what you wanted, so now you try it here again? We are working on an encyclopedia, we are not playing in a merry-go-round. The Banner talk 18:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that there are new eyes on this article, and consensus can change. To the issue at hand... My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports postnominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization."

1. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized.
2. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead.

In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox. – Lionel^(talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As has been said over and over and over and over again by several editors (see above), this talk page is for discussing this article, not for discussing your interpretation of the manual of style. Please take this discussion to the appropriate forum. 32.218.46.19 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like in the infobox here behind the president's name to link SND (a variant used by the sisters for SNDdeN) so that one would not need to go to the article to learn the meaning of the SND. But at here you removed the links I'd placed on Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ and restored it to simply Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ, with the reason given that "WP:CREDENTIAL & WP:POSTNOM are crystal clear." Since you have no talk page I was not able to ask what relevance these guidelines for biographies have here, though I find there that what it says of post-nominals seems to support my preference: "use a piped link to an article with the appropriate title". Jzsj (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I suspect a significant portion of Catholics are not aware that SNDdeN stands for the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduce "Extracurricular activities" section

 I propose to rename the "Athletics" section "Extracurricular activities" and add the following to what is now there:

Students all make a one-day retreat each year and an over-night retreat in their senior year. Juniors and seniors are given the opportunity to make a three-day Kairos retreat. Students also participate in several community service projects.

A select group from the students act as Student Ambassadors, assisting at school activities, representing the school to the public, and helping to identify and recruit good potential students who give promise of succeeding in the work study program.

References

Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This material may be of interest to some readers, but I would object to including it in the article unless we can provide citations to sources independent of the school (see WP:INDEPENDENT.) Many people are passionate about this school, but until third party sources start covering the school in more detail, this article is going to have to remain brief. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In school articles, most activities are referenced only to the school since they are not of interest to the public media. I suggest that the following at Wikipedia:Verifiability justifies the inclusion of this material:

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In line with the call there to show that this material will "improve the article", these are the sort of activities that make this school different in some ways from other schools and as such are included in most school articles, right up to the featured schools. They give specific indication of its thrust toward spirituality and service, and its use of students in the vital screening process to get students who can hold a corporational job and remain free of influence by neighborhood gangs. Jzsj (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion The Banner talk 01:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

user:Jzsj You agree to abide by the discussion rules set out in Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#How to re-rail this train wreck. Reopening this seems to be in violation of

2. Moving forward, we shall only discuss one issue at a time, in a section titled with the appropriate section title in the article currently that the content belongs in. The editor wanting the content change should begin the discussion. Meters (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Or does this new thread mean that you accept the current state of the article with regard to all of the other issues that have been raised? Meters (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It means that I'm not the only one who would like to get this moving forward on more than one front. It's been a week and four other issues have been raised since the one on the History section. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact the only progress you have made is the arrival after canvassing of a few others to restart every discussion that you had already lost. The Banner talk 01:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Meters is correct as a matter of honor this thread should be hatted until History issue is resolved. @The Banner: I do not see a violation of CANVAS. Editors are encouraged to seek input from relevant Wikiprojects and there is a WP:CATHOLIC banner on top of this page. If you wish to file a complaint at WP:AN this is your prerogative. However to make accusations against another editor without evidence is a personal attack. I know everyone here is frustrated but we must exercise civility.– Lionel^(talk) 02:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt, I believe what The Banner is referring to is the nature of the notice posted at WT:CATHOLIC. Neutral notifications are permitted, but to only post at one project out of three and to campaign for support for his position as he did are both violations of CANVAS. John from Idegon (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) _{resigning after fixing ping}

The notice that brought me to this article is neutral Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Notre_Dame_Cristo_Rey_High_School. That said his following notice about "Removing Sr..." at WikiProject Schools needs to be re-worded.– Lionel^(talk) 05:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice on rewording. I have simply removed most of the notice, leaving the extra info for those who pursue the link. Jzsj (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

One Revert Rule

Edit warring is not going to resolve our differences here. I’m proposing that the major contributors to this article voluntarily agree to operate under the one revert rule. I fear that the alternative would be long term full protection. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And I thought editing abortion, Israel-Palestine conflict and Donald Trump were contentious. Those articles have nothing on Notre Dame HS.– Lionel^(talk) 06:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

After the fiasco of trying to establish some guideline based ground rules here, I have no faith that would be adhered to even if it were agreed to. Consequently I am going to do exactly that - request indefinite full protection. John from Idegon (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I beat you to WP:RFPP BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This belong in WP:Lamest edit wars BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Activities and retreat

I have here removed some plain advertising without independent sources. I understand that it is a pet project, but it still is advertising. It has been discussed on this page multiple times, but to no avail: the protection was gone and there it was again. The Banner talk 15:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "pet project" but a test case on whether a few determined editors are correct in opposing this very common inclusion. Most school articles mention special activities at the school, and second party sources are hardly ever available for smaller activities like retreats and service projects. And yet, these activities are a part of what make the school distinctive. The burden of proof should be with the editor who accuses the school website of lying, and in this case the school has as much integrity to protect as a newspaper or book that might, but hardly ever does, mention such activities. Jzsj (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I have removed the advertising again. Please stop with that. Next step will be WP:AN/I. The Banner talk 16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that it looks promotional, and if it's not sourced outside the school website, it generally doesn't merit inclusion here. Primary sources are acceptable in limited doses, but not so much for descriptions of specific and rather trivial programs. Is there a WP:COI issue here? Something similar seems to be happening at Cristo Rey Jesuit High School (Chicago). 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think so, and if not, there is at least an agenda: old user page of Jzsj. The Banner talk 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is a COI. Jzsj is merely enthustatic about topics related to the Catholic church. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm completely new to this particular situation, but the recent reconciliation here [10], which appears to have quickly gone by the wayside, is not encouraging. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, per Wikipedia policy the burden of providing an independent reliable source for added content is on the editor adding the content. 32.218.36.14 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, per Wikipedia policy, the key words are independent and reliable. Rhadow (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Due to pressing matters, both IRL and elsewhere on wiki, I must step away from this party for about a week. I'm still an interested party, but cannot contribute substantially to any discussion for a time. Please do not confuse my absence with any concession or accession to anything. If there is something I can contribute without a lot of time involved, y'all know where to find me. John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Another desperate attempt...

Disregard

 – The ANI has already rapidly closed in favor of the topic ban [11].

... to get what he wants. As not everyone taking part in the discussion was invited (more pros than cons) I invite everybody here to take part in this discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Proposal 4. The Banner talk 22:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban

A discussion is active at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban that concerns my behavior on this page and on pages that grew out of it. I am hereby informing all those who contributed to this page who have not yet voted at the discussion. @Meters: @Marchjuly: @DIYeditor: @The Gnome: @Jojalozzo: @Timtempleton: @Clean Copy: @SMcCandlish: @Alansohn: @MPS1992: @Drmies: @Callanecc: @Rhadow: @Zfish118: Jzsj (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)