Talk:Bulloch Academy

Untitled

more, welcome Victuallers 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Change "that was created as a segregation academy in order to continue providing white-only education in Statesboro, Georgia. It was built and supported by various economic and political elites from the white community after federally mandated integration was enacted.[1]"

to

"Bulloch Academy serves students from Bulloch and surrounding counties. Bulloch Academy admits students of any race, color, national origin, sex, gender, religion, or any other category protected by law to all the rights and privileges, programs, and activities generally accorded and made available to students at the school. The school does not discriminate because of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, religion, or any other category protected by law." Makeitright2021 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't usually use whitewash. The historical fact you want removed is (a) sourced and (b) apparently the only thing the school might be notable for (though I have to say that notability seems anyway extremely dubious). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

I don't know any codes or whatever, but the number of students should be increased to 615. 104.160.48.238 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for that number. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Disussion re implied racism moved from my talk page

The reason I removed it is because the statement, as worded, implies that the school is racist because their student body is 5% while the local population is 28%. That's a conclusion not supported by the refs, which are bare stats. If there were a secondary source that supported claims of the school being racist and that was the reason for the disparity, then fine. Otherwise, it doesn't belong as it is a synthesis to draw an inferred conclusion not supported by the stats. We could just as well synthesize the conclusion that they aren't racist because their % of Asian students vs. the community is 5 times that of the community. But, that's not in the article, nor should it be. Neither should be the inferred conclusion they remain racist. It's not supported by any secondary refs. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think your belief that the article implies racism is synthesis. It certainly isn't stated. But I can totally understand why you're concerned about any inference of racism. Might I suggest you take it to the talk page? I only reverted because because I don't believe this is a case WP:SYN, not because I strongly believe the stats should be included. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Given the lack of traffic on the page, a talk page discussion is unlikely to produce much, if anything. I am going to re-remove the material, as WP:CHALLENGE policy states "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups". If you want to include it, find other sources that discuss the disparity in racial makeup of the school vs. the community. Please don't re-add it without doing so. Regardless, I'm considering putting the article for AfD given the apparent lack of notability of the school. I'm working through WP:BEFORE first of course. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I've appreciated your efforts on school articles in many ways, but I'm not following you here. Is it the presence of the district statistics in close proximity to the school statistics that you find to be SYNTH? It seems to me that demographic statistics are very relevant and commonly reported at schools of all sorts. The statement you removed provided factual, reliably sourced information, the statistics are what they are - any conclusion is being drawn by the reader. I understand that people associated with the school would like to remove this information. Should we remove reliably sourced information becaue the article's subject finds them offensive? Thanks for your input! Jacona (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• If it's ok to juxtapose these two disparate facts, why are other demographic comparisons not included? The comparison is the problem. The sources do not compare the two stats. They state them. We here at Wikipedia are comparing them, which generates the SYNTH problem. The sources are not comparing them. I'm not concerned about the school's desire for better marketing. I've been editing against that in reverting their apparent efforts and wiping out copyright violations of dumps of marketing material. I am concerned about the passage of WP:CHALLENGE that I quoted above. We do have an obligation, codified in policy, to avoid damaging the reputation of groups with poorly sourced information. Yes, the two stats themselves are appropriately sourced. The juxtaposition of the two in the same sentence is a comparison not supported by the stats. Regardless, as I noted above I'm thinking to AfD this article as the sources I am finding are not supporting notability; just the usual run of the mill local sports results sort of thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Then you have no objection to inclusion of demographics, nor the use of NCES? I think the material should be reinserted, but should include the full demographics, not just the black student %. As for AfD, this is a particularly poorly sourced article, but as the school's been there 50 years, it's probably not that the sources don't exist, just that they aren't easily searchable online.Jacona (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the comparison of those two stats in particular that is objectionable, most especially in the same sentence and even more so in a paragraph regarding its racist founding. The implication is blatantly clear, and goes against WP:CHALLENGE in that it directly harms a group. The second paragraph on the article now should probably be a section on the school's history. Demographics could be its own section, without doing comparisons and making implications not supported by references that make the same comparison. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:CHALLENGE is applicable here. The disputed statement is clearly reference with "a reliable, published source using an inline citation".

If your argument is that racism is implied by only one statistic being used, then add any others appropriate.

Is it worth asking for a WP:30? Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the conversation here, this SHOULD be raised on the talk page. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The use of WP:CHALLENGE is absolutely wrong in this case. Reading it clearly convinces me the material should be in the article, but probably be expanded into two separate statements.

What has happened here: 1.) This school was established as a segregation academy, so white kids would not have to go to schools with black kids. 2.) The school still is overwhelmingly white, in contrast to the community. 3.) The folks currently at the school want to clean up their image, so they complained. They want to a.) re-write history where they now feel it impugns them. So take the segregation academy tag out, remove it from the lede even though it is the defining characteristic of the school. and b.) suppress the current facts of the demographics of the school and the community in which it exists. This is censorship nothing more, nothing less.Jacona (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• You know, I spent some time writing a response and just deleted it. It's not worth it. I'm not interested in trying to change the opinions of people who insist this school is racist. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources say what they say.Jacona (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• The sources do not claim the school is racist. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I was thinking that very thing. The sources do not claim the school is racist. One source says the school was founded as a segregation academy. Another states the demographics. The article as well, does not make any claims as to racial attitudes at the school, it just states it's history and numerical attributes.Jacona (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• The article is blatantly making a case the school is racist by juxtaposing the two different (and ONLY those) demographic figures into the same sentence. The veil is so thin on that as to be non-existent. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think the article would be improved by listing the complete demographics. Do you agree? also, I sectionized it, thinking that would be completely non-controversial. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert! Jacona (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I sectionized it and got reverted. *shrug* --Hammersoft (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)