Talk:Isle of Wight Academy

message: an IP has been reverted twice by different editors for adding copy/paste material from school's website and, in addition, removing sourced material from article.  please, IP editor, discuss it here before you do it again.  we can no doubt reach some consensus on additions you want to make, but you're not going to get anywhere by reverting everyone like that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not hard facts about the school, they're promotionalism.  Please read some of the guidelines about what wikipedia is and is not, e.g. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for information on what kind of material should be included in an article, and something like WP:RS for information about what kind of sources are necessary to use as references.  If you work for the school or are associated with it in some way that's affecting your editing, you may have a conflict of interest, and should look at WP:COI to see how to edit in that situation.  I'm also happy to answer questions if you have them, although not if you keep accusing me of defacing wikipedia pages.  I haven't done that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  incipient edit war with IP editor 

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

message: I'm adding a lot of detail about IWA's origins as a segregation academy and about their battles with the IRS.  I would like to present a more balanced picture of the school, but it seems that that is the only thing it's notable for.  There are about 3500 hits on newsbank from the 80's to 2011, and I'm not finished working through them, but they seem to be either routine coverage of football scores, graduation lists, and so forth, and stories about IWA as a seg academy.  I hope someone will be able to find other material, but I haven't been able to do so yet.  I just thought I'd drop a note on here prophylactically.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not singling out this school.  I only have so much time on my hands, and I'll get to all the others eventually.  Feel free to pitch in!  Also, please feel free to add verifiable material to this article, but please make sure you have third party sources when they're necessary.  I'm always happy to talk, just please don't remove cited, verifiable, sourced material without discussing it first.  Also, please try to watch out for copyright violations.  The previous versions were absolutely full of them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

text: You certainly seem to be singling out IWA, so for fairness sake, either tackle all of them or leave this page alone.  I have already started making some changes.  More to follow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem like that to you, but even if I were singling it out, I'm just improving it in line with Wikipedia standards.  Do you happen to have any association with the school itself, by the way?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of undue weight regarding seg academy info 

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

message: I removed this unsourced sentence:
This number, which has increased substantially over the past two decades, demonstrates the school's committment to a departure from its past and its embrace of all students.
because I'm convinced that a bare number cannot actually be said to demonstrate a school's committment to anything.  The sentence is defensive rather than neutral in tone, and, if true, should be mentioned in a source somewhere.  I wouldn't be unhappy with a statement saying that the school's minority enrollment has increased substantially, although on the other hand I think that that's fairly obvious, in that going from 1 to 3 students in the late 80s to about 40 (based on percentage claim and current enrollment) is clearly a substantial increase.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really getting annoyed with you.  Make the "substantial" change then.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you're getting annoyed with me.  If you want edits made, you should make them, not ask me to make them.  If you'd bother reading a little about how wikipedia works before editing so ferociously, you'd see that I'm just trying to negotiate appropriate material for inclusion with you.  When I say I wouldn't be unhappy with it, I don't mean I want it, I mean I'll accept it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Then let me make the change and don't mess with it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if you make it, and I'll maybe mess with it, and then we'll talk about it?  That's how it's done!  I'm happy to see you're starting to understand.  Try reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does a number demonstrate? 

message: The source that that material came from called the headmaster "Bennie":
Meanwhile, about 425 students are enrolled for the 1994-95 school year at Isle of Wight Academy, said Headmaster Bennie Vaughan. He said enrollment has increased about 60 percent over the past five years. 
I am not comfortable changing the name to Benjamin without a separate source.  How do we know that Bennie is short for Benjamin?  It could be short for any number of things, or an actual given name in itself.  It seems to me that it's really better to stick to what published sources say.  Please see WP:RS for information on this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: His name is Benjamin.  He is still the headmaster.  I saw it on the school website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then change it and cite it separately to there, OK?  The newspaper that I got that information from called him Bennie.  I have no opinion on which is used, but if a newspaper calls a person Bennie it seems dangerous to change it without a separate source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SO you want me to change his name and cite it using the school's website?  I am confused.  Without sending me a link, tell me when it is acceptable to use the school's site as a ciatation and when it is not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't care whether you change the name or not, but if you're going to change it, you need to have a source for it, because changing it and leaving it cited to a source which explicitly calls him Bennie is misrepresentative of the source cited.  It's perfectly fine to use the school's website for things like the headmaster's name.  You can find the details at WP:SELFPUB.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would not be acceptable to cite from the school's site?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, unduly self serving material, like that thing below that you cited to privateschools.com but which is really from the school's website?  Is it really so hard to understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I just want to know who appointed you the arbiter of this page on behalf of Wikipedia.  I don't have all day to monitor changes made to this page like you evidently do.  The minute a change is made that you don't like, you take it out.  I can't do that as I am not at a computer 24/7.  And I believe that the school's mission statement is an important piece of what the school is about.  But if you don't, I guess that is how things will be because, again, I don't have the hours upon hours in the day to monitor this entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Friend, every time you hit save on one of these pages, you donate the text you wrote to the entire world.  You should read the agreement there.  No one appointed me, we are all equals here.  It's as much my article as it is your article as it is anyone's article.  You could try reading up on what Wikipedia's about.  You don't have to worry about watching it 24/7, I'm certainly willing to wait and discuss. I hope you'll continue to do the same.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I know what Wikipedia is about.  We are not all equals because not all of us are on the computer all day long.  But you seem to be on here all day long and will change things without talking about it for no good reason.  I am willing to work with you, but you have to stop being so arbitrary with what you insert/delete based on what you feel.  Be considerate of others too.JOEWM2004 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just working from newspapers here, ok?  I insert material that gets printed in newspapers.  That's my standard.  I remove stuff that's not cited to reliable sources or that's copy/pasted from the school's website in violation of the terms of use of that very website.  Did you even notice how I put a nice copy of the school's logo in the infobox with the proper permissions after the one you put in got deleted?  I'm really not out to destroy this article, I'm trying to make it encyclopedic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennie vs. Benjamin 

message: I took this:
The philosophy of Isle of Wight Academy is to accept students of average or above average ability and develop them to their fullest potential by providing a quality program, which will build the student mentally, physically, and spiritually. The school emphasizes the honor, integrity, social development, and citizenship of the student.<:ref></ref>
as it is copy/paste and is not even identified as a quotation.  This is a violation of the website's copyright, as well as plagiarism.  Please take a minute to read Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Plagiarism to avoid this in the future.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what you did with this material now would be OK in general.  The problem is that the material is not really from privateschools.com privateschoolreview.com, it's from IWA's actual website, and was put on privateschools.com privateschoolreview.com by the school, probably.  It seems to me that a school's mission statement is reasonable to include in its article, but I can't tell from the school's website if this is a mission statement or not.  If it is, I would prefer that we identify it as such.  If it's the school's description of itself, I'm a little dubious about whether the school's website counts as a reliable source.  I will certainly leave it alone for a while to think about it, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of copyright violating material 

message: This sentence:
The school's current mission is to enroll students regardless of race, color, ethnic, national, or religious origin, as required by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools standards and accreditation process.<:ref></ref> 
does not seem to be supported by the source it's cited to.  Is there some kind of nondiscrimination statement in that SACS document that I missed?  The nearest thing that I can see is the requirement that accredited schools follow the law, but it is not actually against the law for private schools to discriminate in admissions.  Also, if this clause is what's meant to support the statement cited to it, it seems to me to be some kind of synthesis, and should be removed (see WP:SYNTH).  Perhaps it would be best to change the statement so that it doesn't say that SACS requires nondiscrimination, or else to find an explicit statement by SACS that they require nondiscrimination.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a requirement, but I put in the wrong document.  Fixing now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfecto, thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  School's current mission 

message: Where on the school's website did you see that he was still the headmaster?  I can't find it in there anywhere.  That kind of thing usually goes in the infobox, but I don't want to put it in until we know the actual name.  Can you link to it somewhere?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look under Faculty and Staff? http://www.iwacademy.com/faculty--staff.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating.  How did you find that?  Is it linked to anywhere on the publically facing website?  I just can't find it from there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to Benjamin 

message: The school's website says about 530, whereas this says 647.  I would like to change it to the number from the school's website and cite it to there.  Any objections?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's old info.  Here are the 2011 stats: http://www.iwacademy.com/school-profile.htmlJOEWM2004 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, how do you know that one is old and the other is new?  They're both on the school's website, and is that profile you linked to available through the publically facing index?  I can't see how to get to it from there.  What makes one figure more reliable than the other?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be out of date (something that is not updated when the new site went up).  The old one used to be at iwachargers.homestead.com (it is still listed on a few sites around the web).  Some stuff must not have gotten updated when they switched over.  All other sites (privateschool review, greatschools, etc.) all say 650 or so.05:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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

message: I don't know why in the world you feel the need to "control" this page.  You won't let anyone come to any sort of consesus about what should be on this page because you revert it back when other people who have lives are off living theirs.  The main thing about this school is the education is provides.  Its history is interesting, but that should be an integrated section of the overall article under history.  Why don't you let me add what I want and then you go in and fix it up instead of just reverting the whole thing back and throw out the fact that I am not playing by the rules.  If you are such a Wikipedia genius, then HELP fix the page.  Help come to a consensus on what should be included instead fo just destroying what someone else does.  This is supposed to be a collaboration; what you are doing is not that.JOEWM2004 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice that I asked for input over half a year ago and you and the rest of the world were silent about it?  Anyway, I've opened a request for comments below, which ought to draw more people into the discussion.  As I've stated many times I'm happy to discuss anything.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is completely ridiculous.... 

message: The first issue I'd like to solicit comments on is whether this sentence belongs in the lead:
 It was founded in 1967 as a segregation academy.
You'll see I asked for discussion last year but got no response.  Today User:JOEWM2004 resumed an old edit war over the issue.  As far as I can see, the only reason this school has ever been mentioned in a reliable source is because it was founded as a segregation academy.  Thus it does not seem like undue weight to put it in the lead.
The second issue has to do with these two paragraphs, which User:JOEWM2004 put into the history section as can be seen in this diff here:
School History 	
 
Isle of Wight Academy began operation in the fall of 1967. It openend in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, which was formerly part of the county school system. It was open for one year until tragedy struck in the fall of 1968. A fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which remains the only building standing on the campus from the original school structure). Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium.
 
During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease, thanks in large part to the economic difficulties of the period. The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment now stands at approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy.
As you can see, this is basically a whitewashed version of the reliably sourced history which was previously in the article.  It is sourced only to the school's website.  Obviously it's not desirable to have two parallel versions of the school's history side by side in the article.  I prefer the old version, in which every claim is reliably sourced.  I wonder what others think.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are basically trying to boil an entire institution down to its past actions.  In the lead off to the Constitution, does it say that it was a document that overwhelmingly supported the institution of slavery?  No.  Why?  Because it has evolved just like the school.  The school is valuable because it serves a community.  Its past as a segregation academy should be incorporated, but in its own section under history that deals with that issue only.  The way that you are constantly re-writing this article makes it appear that this is only what the school is about, which could not be further from the truth.
If you want, you can incorporate the two into one history, but that is work that you will have to do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, if it is such a huge part of the school's history, a special section in its history would make it stand out better.JOEWM2004 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But you didn't put it in a separate section, you put a parallel and white-washed history next to a genuine history.  The school's website is appropriate for information like who the headmaster is and what the enrollment is.  It is absolutely not a reliable source for the history of the school.  Please see WP:SELFSOURCE for why this is.  I do think that the one sentence about the former purpose of the school's building is factual enough to be sourced from the school's website, but of all the information you've put into the history section from the school's website, that's the only thing I think ought to stay.  The other issue is the segregation academy statement in the lead.  The ONLY thing that any sources other than the school's website mention about this school is that it was founded as a seg academy.  That's the only thing.  Please look at WP:MOSINTRO to see what I'm talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Additionally, since you want to add that material into the school history section, you should read WP:BURDEN to see that you have to find reliable sources for it, other than the school website, which is, as I said, not a reliable source for that material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who substantially altered the page from what I originally composed years ago, so I believe the burden falls on you.  As far as the segregation academy lead, we had a nice discussion months ago about what should be included.  You took it out of the lead.  Months later, after I guess you figured I stopped looking, you re-inserted it.  That is not collaboration.  It is an interesting part of the school's history, but not the overarching purpose of the school today.  See previous Constitution comments.JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding?  Where did I take it out of the lead?  Where did I agree to take it out?  Provide a diff.  I asked for comments on whether it belonged in there and no one ever answered.  The constitution is more than irrelevant here.  It is not a wikipedia article, it doesn't have a lead but a preamble, and it's a complete red herring.  And burdens apply to people who want to add unsourced material.  Everything I've put in is sourced to a third party reliable source, which meets the burden already.  Everything you want to put in is sourced to the school's website in a way which is not supported by WP:SELFSOURCE, so the burden falls on you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the change on July 10 with this description: put seg academy back into lead, dewikified newly second mention, removed scare quotes.  I like the new lay-out and think that it should stay that way.  And since none of your friends chimed in any differently after you put up the tattle warning, I don't think you have a lot of support.  For the last time, there is a whole section on the school's past as a segregation academy, but that is not the school's mission today.  The way you are modifying it is quite misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that my putting it in is agreeing to take it out?  How does that work? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try this one more time.  We callaborated on the article about a year ago and got it to a place that I was ok with.  Then a month ago, you re-insert something that we had taken out in working together.  In the interest of compromise, let's keep the article as is.JOEWM2004 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, you might not have agreed by your way of thinking, but you DID take it out only to re-insert it when no one was looking.  The school is not a segregation academy today, therefore it should be take out of the lead.  It is an interesting historical note that is included in the article, but putting it in the lead is misleading that the school follows those practices to this day.JOEWM2004 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the diff where I took it out if you're going to keep claiming that I did. Read WP:LEAD and base your argument on that.  The fact that it's no longer a seg academy has nothing to do with what goes in the lead.  The fact that the only reason that it's ever written about in reliable sources is because it began as a seg academy shows that the fact does belong in the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is written in OPPOSITION to the above argument.  Your argument that it should be included in the lead doesn't hold water when other schools that started off for the same reason that you yourself have edited (see Fuqua School and Blessed Sacrament-Huguenot) do not have the lead altered by you to mention segregation academieis.  Seriously, what do you have against this school?  You insult everyone ever associated with it by painting it with such a broad brush.JOEWM2004 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not going to convince many people with that kind of argument.  Edit those articles yourself if you think they need it.  In the case of this school, the fact that it started as a segregation academy needs to be in the lead paragraph because that is the only reason it is ever mentioned in reliable sources except for its football program now and then.  You keep saying it's mentioned for all kinds of other things too, but you've yet to come up with a single source.  Every reliable source in this article except for the SACS document was added by me, (and that's probably actually unusable since it's a primary source and doesn't actually discuss the school, although I've declined to push that point in the interest of compromise). I looked everywhere for anything that anyone cares about regarding this school.  There's nothing but segregation and football.  I would love it if you could prove me wrong with sources rather than unsupported assertions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fairness and consistency thing.  You don't have any credibility for insisting on putting it in the lead when you have not done it consistently to other schools in the same boat that you have edited.  Again, you clearly have some sort of prejudice against the school.  You constantly stalk this page and are completely unfair in your edits.  As far as other evidence goes, I don't have access to newspaper archive searches like you clearly do.  If I did, I could produce a lot of what you are asking for.  Just like you could if you did the same if you were in any way trying to produce a fair article.  Since you are such an expert, how do I put a cute little tag that reports you for that?JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: It's the technical term; see segregation academy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I doubt it; That's the name of the County in VA that the school's in, and that's named after some place in England that was called that before racism was on the radar, but it's an easy conclusion to jump to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still this is an interesting issue. I would love to dig some statements on this topic, but unfortunately I have no access to the local sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me try again since I am a big meanie.  The school is a regional school located in Isle of Wight County.  The county was founded as one of the original eight shires in Virginia and was named after the Isle of Wight off the coast of England, which is where some of its settlers were from.  To imply something else is a little insulting.JOEWM2004 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Um, that is not me.  I showed the ridiculous arguments going on here to some friends and one of them decided to write something up.  He is a little ticked that his comment was deleted because someone didn't possibly think that anyone else would go against "Alf."  Maybe you talk to me instead of snitching to the Wikipedia powers that be every time you don't like or agree with something?  Just a thought.JOEWM2004 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: JOE, we've been talking for almost a year now.  Obviously we're not going to change one another's minds on these two issues at this point.  The thing to do then is have a RFC, which is what we're doing.  If your "friend" was blocked unjustly, take it up with the administrator who did it somewhere else than on this talk page, which is for discussion of the article itself, OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so sorry.  I just don't have the time to spend learning all of the neat little things to try to trip someone up in trying to maintain an article that they wrote from constant unwanted or unnecessary changes from others.  I am still learning, ok?JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Another point that I have just researched: I would argue that it should be taken out of the lead based on previous edits of Alf.laylah.wa.laylah.  In other articles about "segregation academies" that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has also edited, he has not insisted that the words segregation academy be placed in the lead.  A specific example would be that of Fuqua School, which is an integral part of the segregation academy narrative becuase it was actually the catalyst for closing down the entire Prince Edward County school system.  He has edited there but has not insisted to include the lead there.  Also, he has contributed to the page about Blessed Sacrament-Huguenot, which is another very interesting case because of the irony of the school's name alone.  He did not insist on putting it in the lead there either.  Both are great articles and really add to the history; however, neither school is that today, so putting it in the lead is unnecessary and misleading.  I cite precedent and lack of consistency as reason alone to keep the article as is currently.JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, although the section of WP:LEAD I was relying on was the part about explaining what makes the subject notable.  Most of the coverage that this school has received has to do with its founding as a seg academy, so it seems to me that that's a huge part of what makes it notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I could live with that.  Maybe 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.?  Most of what is being argued here is in the past, not the present.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be a way forward then.  We cannot hide the past but we must also show the present and recent history fairly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this is fine with me, too.  The problem I've had for almost a year now is the difficulty of finding sources.  The essential question is how much self-sourced history belongs in the section.  Most of what's sourced to the academy website now is either unverifiable elsewhere or is a white-washed version of things that are already in the other part (e.g. the financial difficulties are only reported in independent sources in relation to the fact that the school started as a seg academy).  Nevertheless, perhaps someone could suggest a version of the history section in another section of this talk page?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you somehow know that the website version of things is inaccurate does that not mean that there must be some sources? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that I've ever said that I "somehow know that the website version" is inaccurate.  The problem is that it's whitewashed. The second paragraph of the current history section is whitewashed because it leaves out every detail of why the school was in financial difficulty.  The sources for this are in the "segregation academy" section, in the paragraph that begins "The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985".  I have no problem with sourcing the facts in the first paragraph to the school website, although some of the language needs to be toned down for neutrality, e.g. "Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC regarding mention of segregation academy in lead paragraph, parallel version of history 

message: I propose that the lead paragraph read:
Isle of Wight Academy (IWA) is an private non-profit day school located in Isle of Wight County, Virginia. It was founded in 1967 as a segregation academy. The school has students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade and is non-sectarian and coeducational.
;support
1. The only reason that this school is ever mentioned in reliable sources is because it was founded as a segregation academy.  WP:LEAD states: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.  Thus its origin as a seg academy ought to be mentioned.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is written in OPPOSITION to the above argument.  Your argument that it should be included in the lead doesn't hold water when other schools that started off for the same reason that you yourself have edited (see Fuqua School and Blessed Sacrament-Huguenot) do not have the lead altered by you to mention segregation academieis.  Seriously, what do you have against this school?  You insult everyone ever associated with it by painting it with such a broad brush.JOEWM2004 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not going to convince many people with that kind of argument.  Edit those articles yourself if you think they need it.  In the case of this school, the fact that it started as a segregation academy needs to be in the lead paragraph because that is the only reason it is ever mentioned in reliable sources except for its football program now and then.  You keep saying it's mentioned for all kinds of other things too, but you've yet to come up with a single source.  Every reliable source in this article except for the SACS document was added by me, (and that's probably actually unusable since it's a primary source and doesn't actually discuss the school, although I've declined to push that point in the interest of compromise). I looked everywhere for anything that anyone cares about regarding this school.  There's nothing but segregation and football.  I would love it if you could prove me wrong with sources rather than unsupported assertions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fairness and consistency thing.  You don't have any credibility for insisting on putting it in the lead when you have not done it consistently to other schools in the same boat that you have edited.  Again, you clearly have some sort of prejudice against the school.  You constantly stalk this page and are completely unfair in your edits.  As far as other evidence goes, I don't have access to newspaper archive searches like you clearly do.  If I did, I could produce a lot of what you are asking for.  Just like you could if you did the same if you were in any way trying to produce a fair article.  Since you are such an expert, how do I put a cute little tag that reports you for that?JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: It's the technical term; see segregation academy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I doubt it; That's the name of the County in VA that the school's in, and that's named after some place in England that was called that before racism was on the radar, but it's an easy conclusion to jump to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still this is an interesting issue. I would love to dig some statements on this topic, but unfortunately I have no access to the local sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me try again since I am a big meanie.  The school is a regional school located in Isle of Wight County.  The county was founded as one of the original eight shires in Virginia and was named after the Isle of Wight off the coast of England, which is where some of its settlers were from.  To imply something else is a little insulting.JOEWM2004 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Um, that is not me.  I showed the ridiculous arguments going on here to some friends and one of them decided to write something up.  He is a little ticked that his comment was deleted because someone didn't possibly think that anyone else would go against "Alf."  Maybe you talk to me instead of snitching to the Wikipedia powers that be every time you don't like or agree with something?  Just a thought.JOEWM2004 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: JOE, we've been talking for almost a year now.  Obviously we're not going to change one another's minds on these two issues at this point.  The thing to do then is have a RFC, which is what we're doing.  If your "friend" was blocked unjustly, take it up with the administrator who did it somewhere else than on this talk page, which is for discussion of the article itself, OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so sorry.  I just don't have the time to spend learning all of the neat little things to try to trip someone up in trying to maintain an article that they wrote from constant unwanted or unnecessary changes from others.  I am still learning, ok?JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Another point that I have just researched: I would argue that it should be taken out of the lead based on previous edits of Alf.laylah.wa.laylah.  In other articles about "segregation academies" that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has also edited, he has not insisted that the words segregation academy be placed in the lead.  A specific example would be that of Fuqua School, which is an integral part of the segregation academy narrative becuase it was actually the catalyst for closing down the entire Prince Edward County school system.  He has edited there but has not insisted to include the lead there.  Also, he has contributed to the page about Blessed Sacrament-Huguenot, which is another very interesting case because of the irony of the school's name alone.  He did not insist on putting it in the lead there either.  Both are great articles and really add to the history; however, neither school is that today, so putting it in the lead is unnecessary and misleading.  I cite precedent and lack of consistency as reason alone to keep the article as is currently.JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, although the section of WP:LEAD I was relying on was the part about explaining what makes the subject notable.  Most of the coverage that this school has received has to do with its founding as a seg academy, so it seems to me that that's a huge part of what makes it notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1

message: I propose that the newly bifurcated history section be merged into a single section without repetitions and different versions of the same material.  I propose that this be done by removing the current "history" section, renaming the seg academy history section back to "history," and then conducting a discussion on the talk page sentence by disputed sentence, keeping in mind WP:SELFSOURCE.
;support
#— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live with that.  Maybe 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.?  Most of what is being argued here is in the past, not the present.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be a way forward then.  We cannot hide the past but we must also show the present and recent history fairly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this is fine with me, too.  The problem I've had for almost a year now is the difficulty of finding sources.  The essential question is how much self-sourced history belongs in the section.  Most of what's sourced to the academy website now is either unverifiable elsewhere or is a white-washed version of things that are already in the other part (e.g. the financial difficulties are only reported in independent sources in relation to the fact that the school started as a seg academy).  Nevertheless, perhaps someone could suggest a version of the history section in another section of this talk page?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you somehow know that the website version of things is inaccurate does that not mean that there must be some sources? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that I've ever said that I "somehow know that the website version" is inaccurate.  The problem is that it's whitewashed. The second paragraph of the current history section is whitewashed because it leaves out every detail of why the school was in financial difficulty.  The sources for this are in the "segregation academy" section, in the paragraph that begins "The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985".  I have no problem with sourcing the facts in the first paragraph to the school website, although some of the language needs to be toned down for neutrality, e.g. "Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2

message: Can we also agree that the history section should not be used as a means of criticising the academy as it currently is, unless such criticism is supported by current reliable sources?  (I hope it is clear what I mean).  Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so clear what you mean.  What in there is a criticism of the school?  What in there that you think is "currently" a criticism is not supported by reliable sources?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving undue weight to the school's bad history might be considered to be unfairly harming its current reputation.   All I am suggesting is that we make sure that this does not happen when we combine the two history sections.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, although it's hard to see how it's undue weight given the coverage of the school in reliable sources.  I raised this question in November 2011 without getting much response: Talk:Isle_of_Wight_Academy#Appearance_of_undue_weight_regarding_seg_academy_info.  The problem is sourcing.  The school is not really mentioned in current reliable sources except as a former seg academy.  I had thought that JOEWM and I negotiated the inclusion of the "Mission" section as a partial solution to this problem.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about sources that refer to the current academy or historical sources.  It would be undue weight to give too much prominenece to what is said about the school historically.  I have suggested a starting sentence below to see if theree is an understanding now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't seem to be sources that refer to the current academy is the main problem.  Can you find some?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are the Academy sources that you mentioned.  These can be considered reliable for purely factual data but they are not good for opinion.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so the question arises as to whether it's really undue weight to concentrate on the school's history as a seg academy, that being the only thing that independent sources discuss about it.  And they have discussed that issue over decades, which seems to say that it's not undue to discuss mostly that in the history section.  The school's website supports the statement that it was started in the building of the old elementary school.  Anything else?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do independent sources still discuss the schools history as an seg academy?  Is so then we should add something about that.  If the sources you refer to are from the segregation era the it would IMO be undue weight to give them prominence.  How about my suggestion below? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is *all* that current independent sources discuss about the school.  The sources cited in the article on the segregation issue range from the 1980s through 2004.  Sources from the segregation era don't discuss the issue at all.  The way that segregation was not discussed post Brown v. Board until the 1980s is sometimes called The Quiet Game.  It's part of what makes it so hard to write the histories of these schools.  Everyone knew what they were for but no one said it out loud, let alone in print.  Anyway, I think that a range of sources from over 20 years beginning 20 years after the founding of the school makes a reasonable case for it not being undue weight to give the issue prominence.  I invite you to check for yourself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical facts are all covered in the link to segregation academy.  You say there are no sources since 2004 criticising the school.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we also agree?

message: Should we say more about the IRS and the schools tax exempt status? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For both of these issues, perhaps you can explain why you think that the parts of the current version which you propose to leave out ought to be left out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they serve no encyclopedic purpose.  Now you say what you would like to add, and why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How so do they serve no encyclopedic purpose?  The IWA was one of only three of these schools that the IRS decided to investigate in 1986 after giving back tax exempt status.  Your version doesn't mention this.  Is it not also reasonable to include the then-headmaster's response to this as well?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK so now we  have a reason to mention the re-removal of tax-exempt status because IWA was one of only three schools to which that happened.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was one of three schools which got re-investigated.  It was one of only two to lose the status.  That seems worth mentioning as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of talk about losing tax-exempt status but not regaining it.  How do you propose to incorporate that?  Surely, you don't want to overlook the historic nature of the school overcoming its battles with the IRS.  It is all tied in with the 1992 accreditation by SACS and there is already an article sourced in previous versions about that.JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now the article states: Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987.  As was discussed above, I agree that it would be good to make it clear that IWA retains its tax exempt status to the present day.  I would be fine with sourcing the current tax exempt status to IWA published materials as it would be a pure statement of fact about the organization.  I can't find a statement to that effect on the IWA website, though.  Can anyone?  How does Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987 and retains it to the present day sound?  I don't actually even think we need a source for this last fact since the Virginia Independent Schools Association requires 501(c)3 status for membership.  I think that citing the fact to VISA rules would violate WP:SYNTHESIS, however. The fact that VISA requires this can be seen from the MANUAL FOR SCHOOL EVALUATION 2011 EDTITION.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

text: But according to these people they are tax exempt, and this was updated in August 2012: .  Anyway, I'm still fine with this: Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987 and retains it to the present day even without a source.  There's no coverage of the IWEF losing its status in reliable secondary sources, so clearly it would be best to leave it out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The school is tax exempt or it wouldn't be accredited by either VISA or SACS.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: So why not 'finally regained its tax exempt status'?  I thing the meaning is clear and it is less long winded. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it not seem relevant to put in the year it regained it?  Maybe I don't understand what sentence you're actually proposing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I meant something like, Isle of Wight Academy finally regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly fine with me.  Do you want to put a proposed paragraph in a new section that reflects your sense of where we are?  Or is it too early for that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My plan was to replace the two history sections with one combined section with a singe section (which you proposed) with the wording as my 'Proposed compromise section (which Joe supports) but with amendments to deal with your objections to my proposal as discussed above.  We could replace the two history sections with my proposal with the agreed wording above, which deals with one of your objections pending discussion and resolution of the 'Geography and survival' issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

message: I think that before we can have a productive discussion about the contents of the history section we ought to clarify our understandings of WP:UNDUE.  My understanding of it is that it says that articles should treat topics with weight that is proportional to the significance of the topic as measured by proportion of coverage in reliable sources.  I base this on the following: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."  Martin, I get the feeling that you understand it differently, but perhaps I'm wrong.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly is the viewpoint that you think is not properly represented? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The viewpoint that the school was founded as a seg academy and that it had well-documented problems with the IRS.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a viewpoint, no one disputes those facts and they are clearly stated as such in the article.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then why shouldn't those facts be discussed at a level of detail proportional to their coverage in sources?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply above.  Why not try to work with the other editors on my proposal?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that I am trying to do just that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, you are fighting a losing battle.  There is no compromise with this guy.  He changes the entire article and then you ask how to help fix it. His reply is you need to come up with something, when he was the one that changed what you originally wrote in the first place.JOEWM2004 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not fighting any battle, I am trying to help you and Alf reach a compromise acceptable to both of you.  Perhaps you could add your comments to the sections above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And your help is appreciated 100%.  I am so glad that there is a voice of reason; however, Alf does not do the whole compromise thing, so good luck.  I will work on my comments, but with work and home life, it is very difficult to keep this going on a daily basis.JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe, as I have just said to Alf, I really do not have strong opinions on this subject and I am not going to fight any fight over this article.  I am trying to help you two reach a compromise but I need to hear both opinions to do this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: There has been no more editing or discussion for a while now. Do we have some sort of agreement or are you both just waiting for an opportunity to make some discreet edits? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am done.  I am happy with the compromise here.  Can we take off the banner now saying that the article is disputed?JOEWM2004 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your false dichotomy between agreement and waiting to make discreet edits is ridiculous, Martin.  There are a bunch of other possibilities.  I can't speak for JOEWM2004, but what we have with me is that I'm on vacation and not editing much.  I oppose removing the neutrality banner until there's an actual discussion of the issues involving the level of detail about the IRS status and the mention of the seg academy in the lead.  Your method of dispute resolution, which you seem to claim doesn't require any knowledge of the subject matter and which is based on everyone making concessions until everyone else is happy, is not going to fix the problems on the page and, although, it superficially resembles one, doesn't seem to me to constitute such a discussion.  Your claims that facts are too old, or unencyclopedic, or boring, are not helpful if they're not based on any kind of sense of what information people might be looking for when they look at this article.  The three of us obviously aren't going to solve anything at this point, and I'm not going to reinsert the material you've removed without some new input into the matter.  I do want the neutrality tag left on there in the hope that it will attract new editors to join this conversation at some point.  I would also like to put the sources that you removed into a further reading section to make the information available to readers and to new editors who might end up having an opinion on the disputed matters here.  Does anyone object to that?  By the way, would you consider removing your signature from the middle of the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess since you're the odd man out, if we are playing by your old rule book, then the burden of proof now falls on you to convince the majority why the article should be changed.  The level of detail about the IRS and the lead about the segregation academy have been decided.  Unfortunately, it is not to your liking.  You seem to have lost the argument, so please move on to ruin other articles, ok?JOEWM2004 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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