Talk:Indian Springs School

Disambiguation

This page needs a disamigution page See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Manitoba_Band_Operated_Schools

Weaponofmassinstruction 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have added "(Manitoba)" after "Indian Springs School" on the above listed page to differentiate it from this ISS. Aleta 03:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Aleta
• I've also added a disambiguation link to the Mantoba school at the top of the ISS main article. Aleta 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Aleta

segregation academy

I'm removing the part about segregation academy, since Indian Springs School does not fit our own definition of segregation academy (TL;DR: these "academies were created by white parents in the late 1950s in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education (1954)”). The school opened in 1952 (per the Alabama Heritage magazine article currently cited in this section), two years prior to Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and prior to the Southern Manifesto (1956). The wording in the article was very confusing, as it suggested that the founder in his will in 1930 predicted that segregation academies would emerge over 2 decades later.

There are a number of private schools that were founded in Alabama, even in the decade or so after Brown v. Board of Education, that are not defined as segregation academies within Wikipedia. Wikipedia also describes segregation academies as a way today to exclude minorities. In contrast, it appears that Indian Springs School is quite progressive in terms of diversity (A- grade for "diversity"). Pundit|utter 16:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it was not founded as a segregation academy, but reflected the discrimination of the period when the founder made his will, when racial segregation was the law in TN.Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing about school demographics

Hi John and Parkwells, I confess to being unfamiliar with Niche.com. I will take your word for the moment that it is not reliable. That being said, I still believe the tagging was poorly done. There was indeed a reference, and it did not take but a couple minutes to find the specific page being referenced and adding the exact URL. Clarity matters, and there were at least three different situations being conflated here:

  *there is no citation (there was one, and Parkwells did not question its quality, but tagged as if it were missing entirely)
  *the citation information needs to be more specific/complete (there was a citation to Niche, and it was quick work to go from niche.com to the particular page on niche and cite it)
  *the reference is of low quality, and we need a better one (what John stated and acted upon).

Were I new, I would have found this entire experience confusing and WP:BITEy. (I do not think either of you meant that to be the case, nor do I know if there was a newbie involved to be bitten, as I have not looked back in the history to see who referenced niche.com originally.)

Please forgive me if I have over-analyzed this in my insomnia. LadyofShalott 06:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, John of Idegon answered you on his own page, where you left these comments. I'm commenting here as it may help other editors. As you can see by the history, the paragraph said, "Per Niche.com," the school has the following breakdown"...blah, blah, blah, or something like that. Saying "Per Niche.com" does not qualify as an inline citation to a Reliable Source, it is just a broad reference to a website. There is no link to go to the page or webpage that has the content, no title for the article or however it is identified, no date, etc. That's what I meant by "citation needed", and that is sufficient. I don't have to redefine what content is needed in an inline citation, as WP does that. In working on other articles, I have often seen the "cite needed" tag, and never the kind of information you're suggesting should be added to each such tag. In this case I had already spent time editing the content of this article and trying to improve it, in addition to improving how sources were cited in the notable alumni section, as well as checking in other WP articles on them to see if their connection to this school was ever sourced, and was getting tired of this school article. Why should I have to go to Niche.com and find the reference and put it in? I've spent more than my fair share of time on many articles filling out other editors' bare urls and making numerous copy editing corrections. Yes, it is helpful that John of Idegon knows about Niche.com, and used a better source for the information.Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@LadyofShalott: @Parkwells: Citations indeed require a URL and/or detailed information on the publishing (title, date, ISBN, etc.) so people can find the information. As per Template_talk:Welcome#A what to do if... section I'm trying to find how to communicate in a simple and straightforward way how to teach people these things. It's a lot for a relatively inexperienced editor to learn! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Template:Full citation needed would have been more appropriate than CN. LadyofShalott 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation

@Dystopos: @John from Idegon: Please discuss the citation here. I found some Issuu pages here https://issuu.com/twomorrows/docs/comicbookcreator12preview and https://issuu.com/twomorrows/docs/comicbookcreator12preview/3 but I dunno what they say... (John, I am aware that you're taking a break right now but I feel it's necessary for me to ping) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• So. Yeah. The question is whether Howard Cruse is, in fact, an alumnus of Indian Springs School. His inclusion was formerly referenced by two sources, but there was a note that these were inappropriate because they "did not refer to his being an alumnus of this school," so I thought I might be helpful since I happen to know of references that do specifically refer to his being an alumnus of the school and I put those in. To my surprise, User:John from Idegon reversed my contribution, saying that blogs aren't reliable sources. I noted that it was actually a weblog written and published by Cruse so it shouldn't be controversial, and that in any case the published interview was still a published interview. He seemed to feel as if I needed his approval of what constitutes a reliable source. I felt like that was kind of dumb so I left it alone after commenting on his talk page. And now he's deleted his talk page to go off and sulk or something. I have a copy of the magazine, which I can quote, but if the question is merely whether it documents his attendance at Indian Springs, it does. Do you want me to photograph that relevant excerpt in addition to providing the citation? --Dystopos (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Re: photographing, yes please! It's good to keep and share records of this stuff. Also note as per Wikipedia:BLP it is acceptable to use self-published sources within reason. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Where would you like me to send these photos? I'm not keen to upload copyrighted material to Wikipedia. --Dystopos (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Please send me an email to whispertotheworld (at) gmail (dot) com WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Based on what I've received, the source should be sufficient. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Just out of curiosity is there now a presumption that every fact on Wikipedia, controversial or not, will be challenged, and that only sources which can be "verified" by clicking through can withstand such a challenge? I'm used to assuming good faith and trying to fix problems instead of just going around deleting other people's work; and I'm also used to having to find things in libraries, but maybe I've gotten too old and out of touch. --Dystopos (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
            • The thing is that offline sources are supposed to be admissable, although it is good to give as much detailed instructions on how to obtain/find them. I guess some people challenge the citations if they don't believe the material, but personally I think it is good to assume good faith when one can. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)