Talk:The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia)

message: This article is the victim of an ensuing edit war.  It was originally created by a WP:SPA.  Now an IP WP:SPA is deleting large portions of the article with the note "Correcting history".  In so doing, the article's references are being screwed up. That's vandalism.
This effort would be better spent on improving the tagged portions of the article.
The matter needs to be resolved on this talk page, or article need to have edit restrictions invoked. Rhadow (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Editing 

message: Text being added by 2600:1005:B015:8225:D9A9:6F87:8427:A41F  is a copy-paste violation from ]. Rhadow (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COPY-PASTE]] 

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While anyone may edit and add content, there are various policies and guidelines that govern what should be included. It's not an advertising platform for the school. It is WP:NOTCENSORED.  Material that is added must be verifiable by independent reliable sources. Please make an effort to learn these policies, and how to implement them before adding information without a reliable source, and before removing information already in the article supported by a reliable source. If you have any questions, you can visit the Wikipedia:Teahouse, or ask on the article talk page (here), or on another editor's talk page. If you need practice, you can use the WP:Sandbox.
I'm restoring the article to the way it was before the flurry of edits against policy. Please discuss here before adding or removing the same content. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Wikipedia 

message: 2016 article from a Massachussetts paper mentions Heritage's heritage as a segregation academy. Maybe it could be helpful? Jacona (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a wonderful op-ed, but not a reliable source. I looked up this guy's LinkedIn and did the math. He was offered the job in about 1985.  He had floated among some fancy (but not quite top-flight) prep schools previously. Funny story. At some of the very best schools at least, the scholarships for disadvantaged youth were underwritten by the Heritage Foundation. Wow!  Even at a place far north and full of polite breeding, I remember a music teacher who teased a classmate of mine, observing, "you have the rhythm."  Another classmate of mine was accepted at Princeton; he rejected the offer and went to Howard. Rhadow (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additional sources 

message: Hello Docram, there is no reason that this article cannot be be returned to regular-length when the controversy is settled. A description of the campus is uncontroversial, as long as it doesn't include the donors' names. Academics can be restored, as long as any claims about tests and scores can be verified. Athletics and arts can can be restored with the same zealous tone all other school articles adopt; I don't care. When the time comes, an alumni section can be created, subject to the same rules as for other schools. And, yes, the history section could be supplemented with contemporaneous references about the school's mission. It's not up to WP to solicit anything from the school. If it wasn't important enough for the press or Congress at the time, it probably isn't useful now.
The article was trimmed by proponents of the school, probably to highlight the section most objectionable to the nominator.  The result was a precis of what makes the school notable -- that it was a private institution started to continue the segregation that was law for many public schools until 1954. To argue for balance when the facts (as complete as we can find them) are in front of us is false equivalence, a logical fallacy. The school was what it was. I don't mind a description of what the school is, what it has become, but the history section stays, even if the other sections are not redeveloped. Rhadow (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I hope I've misunderstood you, but I would strongly oppose any discussion of the school's current "mission" unless it were subject of analysis from reliable secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , you may have misunderstood. I referred to the history section. I believe that the reference I added, testimony before the Senate Select Committee, is a reliable secondary source and contemporaneous (1970).  Rhadow (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole story 

message: Hi, I would like to correct information on this page as well as see why excellent information has been removed, including the alumni and athletics sections. I tried correcting the athletic conference the league plays in (GHSA region 4-A private) and this was deleted. The demographics are out of date, of which I was going to replace, and this was also deleted. Additionally,  I tried addressing some of the accusations of a formation of the school as a “segregation academy”, as these are incorrect. I am a founding member of the school (and therefore a first person source), and can tell you that this was not the reason for the formation. Unfortunately, these accusations have always been made due to the unfortunate tie between the year the school was formed and what else was happening during that time in our history. I would of course understand the listing of those accusations on this page, but to mention them as fact based off an op-Ed by a rejected job applicant and hearsay mentioned in testimony would be inappropriate. There are many instances of false accusations being mentioned during congressional testimony. Therefore this page appears to have become nothing but an illicit attempt to disparage a school, based on slander and hearsay. Any help in correcting this would be much appreciated. Fogoros09 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Information 

message: See WP:DRN#The Heritage School (Newnan, GA)  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution  

message: Editor Jacona has interpolated the phrase "they initially did not enroll any black stucents." In addition to the fact that there is no such thing as a "black stucent," Jacona's edit conveniently ignores the published evidence that the school's leaders were "disappointed that no African-American students applied for the first year." (see Atlanta Journal, July 20, 1970). Hence, Jacona is not editing from a neutral perspective as required by Wikipedia standards. If it is important to include in the header that no blacks enrolled in the first year, the whole truth should be stated: no blacks applied in the first year. In the second year, the board took a significant measure to recruit blacks by offering a tuition waiver. Would it be proper to change Harvard's page to include in the opening tag that "initially it did not enroll blacks" and therefore is properly classified as a segregation academy by it's deeds? Hilltoppers (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous edit 

message: I made an edit to the article based on a talk contribution over a year ago that has gone entirely unaddressed. Jacona reverted the edit based on the fact that it should be addressed on the Talk page. So here it is again, and unless addressed, it merits an edit.
In the first year of Heritage school, no blacks were enrolled, but no blacks had even applied. To leave that addendum off is to attempt to paint the false and dishonest picture that blacks were DENIED admission. Dishonestly will not be countenanced by Wikipedia.
The historical record is clear that in the first year, the leadership of the Heritage school was "disappointed" that no blacks applied. And in the second year they waived tuition to recruit blacks. The argument, "it didn't happen, therefore they didn't want it to happen" is a serious logical fallacy and unacceptable for Wikipedia. Elsewise you could say, "Martin Luther King, Jr. did not choose to marry a white woman, therefore he must have hated white women." That's really bogus reasoning and it has no place on Wikipedia. In the first year the school did not enroll any Japanese, Peruvians, or students from Nebraska. Why shouldn't that fact be included in the opening paragraph? The answer is obvious: it's superfluous and anyone who would derive from that fact that the Heritage school was anti-Japan, anti-Peru, or anti-Nebraska would be committing a very serious logical fallacy. By your logic Harvard University should be dubbed a "segregation academy" on the grounds of their "deeds"-- that there were no blacks in their first student body.Hilltoppers (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Never addressed