This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Virginia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This sounds like a school admissions brochure. Please work on making the language more neutral.
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)
These are hard facts about the school. They are sourced from school material, the school website, and third party sites that any fool can look up on the Internet. Why do you spend free time defacing school's (and this is not the only one) descriptions on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.188.230 ( talk) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
Note that some of the material in question is also taken word-for-word from this Richmond Times-Dispatch article which, in fairness, is probably a reprint of a school press release. In any case, it's evident that it's copyrighted.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
I originally wrote this article and there is much more to this school than the fact that it began as a segregation academy. This is true, but it is no longer true and not even the most important thing about the school. In order for a school to be accredited, which IWA is accredited by two organizations that require non-discrimination, and to maintain tax-exempt status, it is mandatory that they do not discriminate. You need to make more note of this in the article if you insist on changing it drastically from its original form. Also, there are a lot of other schools that have articles that began as segregation academies that you have not insisted on changing. I would suggest that you go alter their sites as well or leave this page alone for the sake of fairness. I am adding some additional information and we can talk about it if you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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> "Privateschool Review". Retrieved 26 November 2011.</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)
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> "SACS/AdvancEd Accreditation Standards". SACS/AdvancEd. Retrieved 26 November 2011.</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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Extended content
|
---|
The first issue I'd like to solicit comments on is whether this sentence belongs in the lead:
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:
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)
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)
You're confused. I never agreed to take it out. Leaving it as it is is not a compromise. Do you have any policy based arguments for taking seg academy out of the lead? Let's just talk about that issue first, OK? We can get to the history section later. Please try to base your arguments on policies, not on dubious comparisons to the constitution and so forth, ok?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1I propose that the lead paragraph read:
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)
2. Yeah, seems like it was this school's main reason for existing. "Segregation academy" sounds wrong, though; shouldn't it be "segregated academy"? It was a segregated school, not a school that taught people how to segregate.— Chowbok ☠ 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
3. I would suggest to wikilink segregation academies and clarify the present day situation. BTW, as "wight" and "white" are homophones, is the "Isle of Wight" a play on the concept of segregation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 2I 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.
|
Is there now agreement to combine the two history sections into a single section, possibly with subsections? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
The Isle of Wight Academy started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, as a segregation academy. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium. I don't think that this is appropriate to source to the school. Also it's phrased promotionally.
2. During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease, thanks in large part to the economic difficulties of the period. This is absolutely inappropriate to source to the school. Who knows why enrollment began to decrease? The school has a COI when it comes to explaining the decrease. If there's no third party source for the reason I think it should be left unmentioned. It's OK to source the *fact* that the enrollment decreased to the school.
3. The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Since we don't know that it was "fortune" that caused the enrollment to drop, we don't know that it was a "reversal of fortune" that made it increase. Also this sounds quite promotional.
4. I don't want to say that it permanently regained its tax exempt status. Tax exempt status is reviewed regularly and is *always* conditional.
5. Why not mention the IRS investigation in the 1980s? If you look at newsbank, proquest, or something similar, you'll see that this was huge news in Virginia at the time. There was story after story in the Richmond papers about this.
In general I think that your version leaves out a lot of important and reliably sourced material, including the effect of the geography of the area on the school's survival (being in tobacco rather than corn country). How about this:
Isle of Wight Academy opened its doors in the fall of 1967 as a segregation academy, a school opened as part of the " massive resistance" strategy that opposed racial integration of public schools.<:ref> "With Resistance". Daily Press. May 9, 2004. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> IWA started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School. It was open for one year until, in the fall of 1968, a fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which is the only remaining original building on campus). IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium.<:ref name=aboutiwa/>
It was one of many such schools which lost tax-exempt status in the early 1970s because of racially discriminatory admissions policies.<:ref name="Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ..."> Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ... U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1972. p. 647. Retrieved 20 September 2011.</ref> The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985.<:ref name=prince>Gordon, Richard E. (April 16, 1986). "Prince Edward Academy Given Tax Exempt Status". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> However, in February 1986 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was opening an investigation to determine whether the IWA and two other Virginia private schools had actually abandoned these policies.<:ref name=demo> "Democrat Says IRS Probing Three Schools". Richmond Times-Dispatch: B1. February 26, 1986. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> William Hooper, IWA headmaster at that time, stated that although none of the school's 400 students were Black, the school was open to anyone.<:ref name=demo /> In April 1986 the IRS announced that both IWA and the Amelia Academy would have their tax exemption revoked.<:ref name=prince /> Hooper stated: "We just have not had a black to apply or a minority to apply. I don't know what we can do at this point. I hope we'll get some applications so we can get this thing behind us. Evidently that's what it's going to take, and we'd be happy to get some tomorrow."<:ref name=prince />
Many of the segregation academies which lost their tax exemptions experienced a sharp drop in donations. Some of them were forced out of business by the loss in income, but the Isle of Wight academy managed to survive. Bennie Vaughan, headmaster at IWA during the 1994-95 school year, attributed the school's survival to "innovative programs, enlightened leadership, extended bus routes and 'generous' contributions."<:ref name=iw>Paust, Matthew (August 28, 1994). "IW School Has Always Thrived: Crop Money Key to Success?". Daily Press. Retrieved November 25, 2011.</ref> G. Meri Longest, former president of the board of directors of one of the schools that ended up closing due to IRS actions, explained that the difference was that many donors to IWA were local farmers who were able to grow valuable cash crops such as tobacco, peanuts, and cotton. According to Longest, schools in less favorable locations, such as Longest's York Academy, were dependent on corn farmers, who generate much less money per acre, and so were unable to support their local private schools as generously.<:ref name=iw />
Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987.<:ref name=despite>Ebeling, Ashlea (November 26, 1989). "Despite Its Changed Image, Academy Draws Few Blacks". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> In 1988, IWA enrolled three Black students out of 300, and in 1989 one.<:ref name=despite /> Headmaster Don Deaton told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that "We would like to have more black students but it's hard to attract them."<:ref name=despite /> In the 1990s enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment in 2012 was approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy.<:ref name=aboutiwa> "About IWA". Retrieved 8 August 2012.</ref>
— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that Martin has some great points for coming to a compromise, which is all I have ever wanted. Martin, you should know that Alf will not allow this to happen. He clearly has some sort of bias against the school. If you look at other schools that began under similar circumstances that Alf has edited, he is not insisting on the same undue weight being assigned in the lead or elsewhere. I believe that he clearly has some sort of agenda here; however, I can't prove it.
Also, I wish I had access to Newsbank, but I don't. I refuse to believe that there are no relevant articles from recent years. This gives our friend Alf an almost unfair advantage in this fight because he can "source" things and we can't.
I like your version of the school's history and agree with the opposition to putting the segregation bit in the lead. It is purposefully misleading and paints the school in an innacurate light in the present day. Thank you for getting involved in this article and for helping to engender a spirit of compromise. JOEWM2004 ( talk) 02:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Below is a suggested 'History' section amended to take account of some of Alf's objection:
Is this close to a consensus? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
What should we say about the effect of the geography of the area on the school's survival (being in tobacco rather than corn country)?
Should we say more about the IRS and the schools tax exempt status? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JOEWM2004, no one disputes this. What do you think of the proposed addition to the sentence on tax-exempt status making it clear that it not only regained it in 1987 as the article now states, but that it continues to have it?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 19:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble piecing together what that would look like. Would you mind pasting a proposed complete version in a new section so I can see what you mean?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we have this, which is pretty much as before but, as I understand it you have no complaint about the IRS issues:
Sorry, I've been off wiki for a while until this morning and hadn't had a chance to get to this yet. As I said above, I'm not comfortable with the entire history section comprising your new version here. I don't think it talks enough about how they lost their tax exempt status after an actual investigation. What exactly do you all have against this paragraph:
The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985. However, in February 1986 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was opening an investigation to determine whether the IWA and two other Virginia private schools had actually abandoned these policies.[6] William Hooper, IWA headmaster at that time, stated that although none of the school's 400 students were Black, the school was open to anyone.[6] In April 1986 the IRS announced that both IWA and the Amelia Academy would have their tax exemption revoked.[2] Hooper stated: "We just have not had a black to apply or a minority to apply. I don't know what we can do at this point. I hope we'll get some applications so we can get this thing behind us. Evidently that's what it's going to take, and we'd be happy to get some tomorrow."[2]
As argued above, this is encyclopedic since a bunch of schools got their status back, but Isle of Wight was one of three to be investigated and one of two to lose the status because of the investigation. Does it not also seem reasonable to include the response of the then-headmaster to this situation?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing here. I agree with Joe that it should continue to state explicitly somewhere that the school does not discriminate. Martin says that they could not get away with this today, but in fact racial discrimination in schools is perfectly legal in the USA, just not for schools operating as tax exempt charities. Thus it is a positive and actual choice that IWA has made to not discriminate, and shouldn't be left up to the reader to assume. Some schools have not made the choice to integrate. The IWA has. It should be mentioned.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What are your objections to the paragraph that Alf wants to add? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
News related to the school [4].
I do not know why the facts keep getting removed . I am not saying whether or not the students were right or wrong.or rather or not administration did anything about it . But it did happen. Bbeez25 ( talk) 04:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I will cite it later but trust me it is not an isolated incident and deserves its place. Linkdude2016 ( talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Also who is link dude. He is deleting material on the page Linkdude2016 ( talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Virginia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This sounds like a school admissions brochure. Please work on making the language more neutral.
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)
These are hard facts about the school. They are sourced from school material, the school website, and third party sites that any fool can look up on the Internet. Why do you spend free time defacing school's (and this is not the only one) descriptions on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.188.230 ( talk) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
Note that some of the material in question is also taken word-for-word from this Richmond Times-Dispatch article which, in fairness, is probably a reprint of a school press release. In any case, it's evident that it's copyrighted.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
I originally wrote this article and there is much more to this school than the fact that it began as a segregation academy. This is true, but it is no longer true and not even the most important thing about the school. In order for a school to be accredited, which IWA is accredited by two organizations that require non-discrimination, and to maintain tax-exempt status, it is mandatory that they do not discriminate. You need to make more note of this in the article if you insist on changing it drastically from its original form. Also, there are a lot of other schools that have articles that began as segregation academies that you have not insisted on changing. I would suggest that you go alter their sites as well or leave this page alone for the sake of fairness. I am adding some additional information and we can talk about it if you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEWM2004 ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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> "Privateschool Review". Retrieved 26 November 2011.</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)
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> "SACS/AdvancEd Accreditation Standards". SACS/AdvancEd. Retrieved 26 November 2011.</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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Extended content
|
---|
The first issue I'd like to solicit comments on is whether this sentence belongs in the lead:
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:
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)
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)
You're confused. I never agreed to take it out. Leaving it as it is is not a compromise. Do you have any policy based arguments for taking seg academy out of the lead? Let's just talk about that issue first, OK? We can get to the history section later. Please try to base your arguments on policies, not on dubious comparisons to the constitution and so forth, ok?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1I propose that the lead paragraph read:
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)
2. Yeah, seems like it was this school's main reason for existing. "Segregation academy" sounds wrong, though; shouldn't it be "segregated academy"? It was a segregated school, not a school that taught people how to segregate.— Chowbok ☠ 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
3. I would suggest to wikilink segregation academies and clarify the present day situation. BTW, as "wight" and "white" are homophones, is the "Isle of Wight" a play on the concept of segregation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 2I 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.
|
Is there now agreement to combine the two history sections into a single section, possibly with subsections? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
The Isle of Wight Academy started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School, as a segregation academy. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Thanks to the generosity of the entire school community, IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium. I don't think that this is appropriate to source to the school. Also it's phrased promotionally.
2. During the 1980's enrollment began to decrease, thanks in large part to the economic difficulties of the period. This is absolutely inappropriate to source to the school. Who knows why enrollment began to decrease? The school has a COI when it comes to explaining the decrease. If there's no third party source for the reason I think it should be left unmentioned. It's OK to source the *fact* that the enrollment decreased to the school.
3. The early 1990's saw a reversal of fortune for the school. Since we don't know that it was "fortune" that caused the enrollment to drop, we don't know that it was a "reversal of fortune" that made it increase. Also this sounds quite promotional.
4. I don't want to say that it permanently regained its tax exempt status. Tax exempt status is reviewed regularly and is *always* conditional.
5. Why not mention the IRS investigation in the 1980s? If you look at newsbank, proquest, or something similar, you'll see that this was huge news in Virginia at the time. There was story after story in the Richmond papers about this.
In general I think that your version leaves out a lot of important and reliably sourced material, including the effect of the geography of the area on the school's survival (being in tobacco rather than corn country). How about this:
Isle of Wight Academy opened its doors in the fall of 1967 as a segregation academy, a school opened as part of the " massive resistance" strategy that opposed racial integration of public schools.<:ref> "With Resistance". Daily Press. May 9, 2004. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> IWA started in the space previously occupied by the Isle of Wight Elementary School. It was open for one year until, in the fall of 1968, a fire completely destroyed the school building, leaving only the original gymnasium (which is the only remaining original building on campus). IWA was able to rebuild with four permanent classroom buildings and a new gymnasium.<:ref name=aboutiwa/>
It was one of many such schools which lost tax-exempt status in the early 1970s because of racially discriminatory admissions policies.<:ref name="Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ..."> Tax credits for nonpublic education: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, second session, on H.R. 16141 and other pending proposals ... U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1972. p. 647. Retrieved 20 September 2011.</ref> The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985.<:ref name=prince>Gordon, Richard E. (April 16, 1986). "Prince Edward Academy Given Tax Exempt Status". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> However, in February 1986 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was opening an investigation to determine whether the IWA and two other Virginia private schools had actually abandoned these policies.<:ref name=demo> "Democrat Says IRS Probing Three Schools". Richmond Times-Dispatch: B1. February 26, 1986. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> William Hooper, IWA headmaster at that time, stated that although none of the school's 400 students were Black, the school was open to anyone.<:ref name=demo /> In April 1986 the IRS announced that both IWA and the Amelia Academy would have their tax exemption revoked.<:ref name=prince /> Hooper stated: "We just have not had a black to apply or a minority to apply. I don't know what we can do at this point. I hope we'll get some applications so we can get this thing behind us. Evidently that's what it's going to take, and we'd be happy to get some tomorrow."<:ref name=prince />
Many of the segregation academies which lost their tax exemptions experienced a sharp drop in donations. Some of them were forced out of business by the loss in income, but the Isle of Wight academy managed to survive. Bennie Vaughan, headmaster at IWA during the 1994-95 school year, attributed the school's survival to "innovative programs, enlightened leadership, extended bus routes and 'generous' contributions."<:ref name=iw>Paust, Matthew (August 28, 1994). "IW School Has Always Thrived: Crop Money Key to Success?". Daily Press. Retrieved November 25, 2011.</ref> G. Meri Longest, former president of the board of directors of one of the schools that ended up closing due to IRS actions, explained that the difference was that many donors to IWA were local farmers who were able to grow valuable cash crops such as tobacco, peanuts, and cotton. According to Longest, schools in less favorable locations, such as Longest's York Academy, were dependent on corn farmers, who generate much less money per acre, and so were unable to support their local private schools as generously.<:ref name=iw />
Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in June 1987.<:ref name=despite>Ebeling, Ashlea (November 26, 1989). "Despite Its Changed Image, Academy Draws Few Blacks". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 24, 2011.</ref> In 1988, IWA enrolled three Black students out of 300, and in 1989 one.<:ref name=despite /> Headmaster Don Deaton told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that "We would like to have more black students but it's hard to attract them."<:ref name=despite /> In the 1990s enrollment began a steady increase and more programs began to be offered to the growing student body. Enrollment in 2012 was approximately 650 students, the most ever enrolled at the Academy.<:ref name=aboutiwa> "About IWA". Retrieved 8 August 2012.</ref>
— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that Martin has some great points for coming to a compromise, which is all I have ever wanted. Martin, you should know that Alf will not allow this to happen. He clearly has some sort of bias against the school. If you look at other schools that began under similar circumstances that Alf has edited, he is not insisting on the same undue weight being assigned in the lead or elsewhere. I believe that he clearly has some sort of agenda here; however, I can't prove it.
Also, I wish I had access to Newsbank, but I don't. I refuse to believe that there are no relevant articles from recent years. This gives our friend Alf an almost unfair advantage in this fight because he can "source" things and we can't.
I like your version of the school's history and agree with the opposition to putting the segregation bit in the lead. It is purposefully misleading and paints the school in an innacurate light in the present day. Thank you for getting involved in this article and for helping to engender a spirit of compromise. JOEWM2004 ( talk) 02:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Below is a suggested 'History' section amended to take account of some of Alf's objection:
Is this close to a consensus? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
What should we say about the effect of the geography of the area on the school's survival (being in tobacco rather than corn country)?
Should we say more about the IRS and the schools tax exempt status? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JOEWM2004, no one disputes this. What do you think of the proposed addition to the sentence on tax-exempt status making it clear that it not only regained it in 1987 as the article now states, but that it continues to have it?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 19:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble piecing together what that would look like. Would you mind pasting a proposed complete version in a new section so I can see what you mean?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we have this, which is pretty much as before but, as I understand it you have no complaint about the IRS issues:
Sorry, I've been off wiki for a while until this morning and hadn't had a chance to get to this yet. As I said above, I'm not comfortable with the entire history section comprising your new version here. I don't think it talks enough about how they lost their tax exempt status after an actual investigation. What exactly do you all have against this paragraph:
The Isle of Wight Academy regained its tax-exempt status in 1985. However, in February 1986 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was opening an investigation to determine whether the IWA and two other Virginia private schools had actually abandoned these policies.[6] William Hooper, IWA headmaster at that time, stated that although none of the school's 400 students were Black, the school was open to anyone.[6] In April 1986 the IRS announced that both IWA and the Amelia Academy would have their tax exemption revoked.[2] Hooper stated: "We just have not had a black to apply or a minority to apply. I don't know what we can do at this point. I hope we'll get some applications so we can get this thing behind us. Evidently that's what it's going to take, and we'd be happy to get some tomorrow."[2]
As argued above, this is encyclopedic since a bunch of schools got their status back, but Isle of Wight was one of three to be investigated and one of two to lose the status because of the investigation. Does it not also seem reasonable to include the response of the then-headmaster to this situation?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing here. I agree with Joe that it should continue to state explicitly somewhere that the school does not discriminate. Martin says that they could not get away with this today, but in fact racial discrimination in schools is perfectly legal in the USA, just not for schools operating as tax exempt charities. Thus it is a positive and actual choice that IWA has made to not discriminate, and shouldn't be left up to the reader to assume. Some schools have not made the choice to integrate. The IWA has. It should be mentioned.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What are your objections to the paragraph that Alf wants to add? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
News related to the school [4].
I do not know why the facts keep getting removed . I am not saying whether or not the students were right or wrong.or rather or not administration did anything about it . But it did happen. Bbeez25 ( talk) 04:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I will cite it later but trust me it is not an isolated incident and deserves its place. Linkdude2016 ( talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Also who is link dude. He is deleting material on the page Linkdude2016 ( talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
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)