Talk:First Presbyterian Day School

message: A user with a conflict of interest is repeatedly adding Steve Penley to the list of notable alumni the reference doesn't mention this and in any case he has no article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: has an obvious conflict of interest here, and is therefore strongly discouraged from making edits directly to the article itself. Instead, suggestions for improvement can be made here, on this talk page. Non-notable alumni have no place in articles on schools, see WP:ALUMNI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest Comment 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.fpdmacon.org/overview-core-values/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos and thanks to  for noticing and removing this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Below is a quote from an article in the Macon Telegraph, February 1, 1970, showing the original location for First Presbyterian Day School was planned for a downtown location close to the church, not in the suburbs, but the plan was denied by Macon Bibb Planning and Zoning so the founders could not located the school there.
I'm not sure if this is the way this needs to be cited or not. Please advise if not. Bb2026 (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see.  It's behind a paywall, userid and password required. Rhadow (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Originally Planned Downtown Location of First Presbyterian Day School 

message: Hello all. As my username suggests I am a Georgia history buff and have lived in Macon my whole life and I have recently decided to start editing Wikipedia in my free time.  I am very new to the platform and saw where you edited some of my own edits.  Thank you for your feedback and I would like to ask for your advice on editing some pages dealing with Macon and Georgia history. 
Stratford Academy and First Presbyterian Day School are two prominent private schools in my area.  Being such, I thought their history would be interesting areas to look into. 
I began by looking into the bibliography on their Wikipedia pages and I noticed that they both cited Andrew Manis’s Macon Black and White An Unutterable Separation in the American Century.  I managed to get a hold of a copy and found it very interesting reading, particularly Chapter 10 on the rise of segregation academies in Bibb County.  I decided then to look through that chapter’s bibliography and found that citation 14 referred to an article in the Macon telegraph from April of 1960.  Being the amateur historian that I am, I decided to look up this article in my library’s genealogy archive.  While it is undoubtedly true that Stratford and First Presbyterian Day School have some ties to the segregation school movement, I believe this particular article which Manis cites is taken out of context and creates a bit of a gray area. In the article, it specifically refers to the founding of Stratford as a response to the possibility of the closing of public schools, not directly to integration.  I quote:
“In a letter to some 30 persons who had been previously contacted by proponents of the plan, Buffington said the meeting would be to discuss the possibilities of a private school ‘in the event it becomes necessary to close the existing public schools under the laws as they now exist.”’
Because of this ambiguity, I propose creating a ‘Controversy’ Section for Stratford and First Presbyterian Day School’s pages and moving some of the information regarding their status as segregation academies under it.  I plan on doing further research over the next several weeks. Would you all be amenable to this or do any of you see any other solution?
Thank you,
GAhistorybuff0817  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAhistorybuff0817 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again, . Please remember to sign your talk page postings with 4 tildes (~~~~). There is no need to type out your username. The tildes automatically add it, along with a time stamp and a link to your talk page. I oppose the change you made that I reverted [:Hello again, . Please remember to sign your talk page postings with 4 tildes (~~~~). There is no need to type out your username. The tildes automatically add it, along with a time stamp and a link to your talk page. I oppose the change you made that I reverted here. Instead, the copy in the lede about segregation academy should be moved to the history section  and the current content there should be removed for being more news than history and for the lack of secondary sources. The LEDE is supposed to provide basic identifying information and summarize the important facts discussed in the article. I'd propose putting in the lede language like " the school was founded in XXXX as a segregation academy. No reference is needed, as it is provided in the history section. The link to LEDE above endorses that. It's part of the school's history, and from what is here in the article now, the most important and defining part. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John. When this school is discussed in reliable sources, the focus is on its history of racial discrimination. As such, this unfortunate aspect of the school's history must be highlighted in the lede.  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Controversy Section