Talk:John F. Kennedy High School (Richmond, California)

Deletion of majority of article

The majority of this entry on Kennedy High School has been deleted, including almost all of its history. Unless someone else is already working on it, I would like to redo the article. It needs to be a full article. A great deal of the history can be referenced. JacDT (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC) JacDT (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In going over the deletions from the previous and more thorough web page for Kennedy High School, it looks like they needed citations. I propose reinstating the web page from early last year, with the emphasis on finding citations for the statements. It was a good page, and described the school and its history well, if incompletely. JacDT (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in the history section to fit more of an encyclopedic tone. I think it still needs more of that. I also deleted several sentences that didn't have direct references. I've added a number of references. Right now they are at the beginning of the history section, which obviously isn't ideal. I would like to get them more inline to that section of the article.

I noticed that there was an oral history reference used in the original article. I suspect that is the source of some of the more subjective comments in the history section. The reference as given appears to fit the recommendations as described here on Wikipedia for using oral histories as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikimedia_Strategy_2017/Cycle_3#A_more_complex_view_of_oral_history

The problem I have is it wasn't clear from the original article which sentences depended on the oral history. That makes it hard to add it as an inline reference. JacDT (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I tagged the section with a {{No footnotes}} tag. If you want some more reprieve you could tag the section with {{In use|section}}. But this is something that has to be resolved, because unsourced statements can't stay long. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get those inline. I'll also get better descriptions of the experimental programs tried by the school, the modular flexible scheduling and the Richmond Voluntary Integration program. Papers have been written in depth on both aspects, in particular the desegregation debates, and that needs to be clarified. The controversy and unexpected success of the voluntary desegregation program during a time of historically (and locally) charged national debate on the subject were significant, and that doesn't really come through in the current Wikipedia article.

The one reference I don't know what to do with is the oral history. It looks like a lot of scholarship went into obtaining that history. Although I don't want to disrespect the scholarship of that work by leaving it out, it isn't clear to me how exactly how it applies to in the article. JacDT (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean when you say that there is an oral history relating to this page. The strategy discussion you linked to above refers to written academic publications interpreting oral histories as witnessed by academics. Which still means that there must be reliable, written references at some point along the road. If you mean to say that certain things were not written down by anybody, then they simply can't be used, as per standing Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability. If I understand everything correctly. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It's this reference: "Narrative and Oral History analysis provided by Dr. Nicholas Zoffel, San Jose State University, Department of Communication Studies from interviews with inaugural teachers Ms. Dolly Felix, Mr. Michael Peritz, & Community Organizer, Mr. George Harris (Peritz, M., Felix, D., Harris, G., personal communication via. interview, December 29, 2008). Of scholarly note, the interview process follows guidelines for Narrative Analysis compiled in Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications"

I am not sure exactly what it means or where it came from, so that is why I'm not sure what to do with it. I've been looking at the original history when the page was first built, seeing if I can find who entered it and how it is documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a use for that source. The other sources need to be inline. The tone of the history section is still promotional. I do not see a source that could even be reasonably used for a quote on the school achieving flagship status (what does that even mean?), much less saying it in Wikipedia's voice. You've added back a bunch of stuff I removed from the lede, without source. Athletics information belongs in the athletics section and the school's nickname is already in the infobox. The bibliographic information needs to be added to the references and those that are paywalled need to be quoted.

Just a note...with this post, I'm going to be more or less ofline for a week (medical care). Please respect WP:NODEADLINE. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

John, thanks. That helps. Also, best wishes on your medical care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gotten through about one third of the work the history section needs. I will do more tomorrow. I need to look up more references. John, thanks for being gracious about giving me more time with the WP:NODEADLINE. I appreciate it. And when you get back, we can talk about the notable alum section. I still don't agree with you about the references, but if you can give me an idea why you don't like the way they are presented, I'm sure we can figure out something that suits us both. Thanks -- Cat — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oral narrative

I found the first instance of the reference that became the oral narrative. It occurs on March 6, 2009, on this iteration of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_High_School_(Richmond,_California)&oldid=275429735.

Over a number of subsequent edits, the reference is gradually fined-tuned into the one that is on the page now: "Narrative and Oral History analysis provided by Dr. Nicholas Zoffel, San Jose State University, Department of Communication Studies from interviews with inaugural teachers Ms. Dolly Felix, Mr. Michael Peritz, & Community Organizer, Mr. George Harris (Peritz, M., Felix, D., Harris, G., personal communication via. interview, December 29, 2008). Of scholarly note, the interview process follows guidelines for Narrative Analysis compiled in Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications"

As per our discussion, I will most likely delete that reference. Before I do, however, I'd like to try to contact the researcher who put it in to find out if they have documentation that can be used to make it a reference acceptable by Wikipedia. They are identified by their IP address rather than by a user name, so I'm not sure of the best way to proceed. Is there a recommended procedure for contacting the editor? I'm open to suggestions. JacDT (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This looks useful, if it can be applied to the current article: Wikipedia: Oral_history. JacDT (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think I will need the oral narrative. It looks like either that that narrative evolved into the masters thesis written by Adkisson at the Berkeley School of Journalism, or they independently verify the same information. Also, a lot of the information is in the Peritz Scenario 3 reference. So I'll delete that citation to the oral history.JacDT (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Paywall

John, in response to your comment upstream, I checked the article for references that are paywalled. I didn't find any in the history section. I did find one in the notable alumni section: the book In Contempt that is cited in the page you linked to as your reference for Christopher Darden. It gives the reference without an online link to text of the book, just the ISBN, which leaves the reader having to purchase the book or do their own search online. Since that was your input to the article, I'll let you take care of updating that reference. Although I didn't find a full copy of the book online, pages are available through various sites, so perhaps those can be referred to. (It's a a good book, by the way; I've enjoyed the excerpts I read online)

I don't know if the notes for the oral history are paywalled are not; I haven't yet found the original text. See the Oral Narrative section above for details. I'm currently checking the revisions to the reference that evolved in 2009 to see if I can find one with an editor with a current contact. It looks like a lot of work went into the obtaining the history, which could potentially be very useful, but without the actual text, my hands are tied. If I can get the text from the author, though, I may be able to use the recommendations given in Wikipedia:Oral_history to upload them. I'll continue working on that. JacDT (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tone of article

In response to the comment above about the "Flagship" reference, I fixed that and included references to indicate that during its first decade or so, the school was considered among the best in the state of California.

I'm also rewriting the history section to use a tone and style more suitable to Wikipedia. I'm through a first draft of the first few paragraphs and will continue over the next few days. The article sounded promotional before because it wasn't referenced or phrased in a format expected for an encyclopedia. However, it actually underplayed the history, as can be seen by the treatises and book entries written about the school. What makes Kennedy notable is not its current state, but rather that it was once considered one of the best schools in one of the largest states, with programs that even many magnet schools didn't have, innovative education designs considered unique by many educators (in particular the college scheduling model), and a marked high rate of success among its alumni. This existed for an school in the projects of the flats of Richmond, California. That in itself would make it notable, but another reason it has sparked scholarship is because in only a few decades it went from that status to being among the lowest percentages of schools listed in the state. The question of why, and how that happened, reflects on educational reform in general, which is why it's provoked so much scholarship. It's why the treatise from the Berkeley School of Journalism refers to it as the fall of Camelot. What I'm aiming for in the article is give an accurate account of the school and what makes it notable, using a style appropriate to the encyclopedia. The reason it's taking longer than usual is because I have to read all these articles and some longer works, some of which are rather dry, and that takes time. JacDT (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

JacDT, in looking at the article anew, it strikes me as overweighted to the history side. I mean, it's an extant school and it has stuff going on, but the vibe is so retrospective that I find myself surprised that it's still in operation. The history is unquestionably interesting, although it could probably be tightened up a bit and, more important, the other nuts and bolts elements you'd expect need to be introduced. Some of the renewal material could be repurposed into sections on electives, services, etc. The sections I'm thinking of are outlined in WP:WPSCH/AG#OS. Ottoump (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see the history tightened, too. Part of the difficulty is that the effects of Serrano and Prop 13 are complex enough that it's hard to summarize them. Do you have any specific suggestions about tightening that section? I also agree that it needs more in the renewal. For the WP:WPSCH/AG#OS link you gave, is there anything in particular that you'd like to see outlined? I've looked at this article for so long, it's hard to see it with fresh eyes. Perhaps if I sleep on it, I will see better tomorrow. JacDT (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it, but it won't be until the end of long weekend (and at the pace you work, I'm pretty sure you'll have already cast fresh eyes on it.)

Sections that immediately strike me as doable include Campus (you talked about the building and its courtyard, absence of windows looking away from campus) including an InfoBox map; School Structure might include a size breakdown by grade per NCES; Athletics could be subsumed into a general Extracurricular Activities section... anything on dance or the arts? The Fab Lab is impressively fab, although I'm not sure if that's an elective, a club, or a community service. Maybe a list of principals, although getting references for this can be hard in my experience. Ottoump (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Acute rivalries and unusual traditions would be good, too. Ottoump (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

SARC Report

Another question: The School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for 1980–1999 is no longer online, at least not that I have so far been able to find. It should be available in paper form from the county, but as far as I can see, it can't be linked to. It's a useful reference for the the article and its information doesn't stop being true because the web link no longer works, but at the same time, it isn't available. What is the common wisdom about dealing with such a link? Since I live on the East Coast, I don't have the option of going to Richmond, CA to find a hard copy and I don't know if it can be mailed or if they would give permission to post it online. JacDT (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Jail for kids

The school was is nicknamed jail for kids because of it's initials and at one time violent kids it's in one of the old references we should include it somehow maybe during this period the school gained a nicknamed based on its initials jail for kids.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndołkah (talk • contribs)

I was thinking of putting that back in; it's pretty evocative of how the school evolved over the years. If I remember correctly, it was also called that because it has no windows on the outside. It was beautiful inside, with the open central quad where students congregated, but it looks like an ugly monolith from outside. both Adkisson and Pertiz refer to it in their articles, so it's true, we have good references. The reason I didn't include it is because I had several hundred details about the school I wanted to include and I'm concerned for the length of the article. I've left out a lot already, such as the FEAST program, which was pretty significant. It could also use more about athletics. The article was mostly deleted recently, I think for lack of references and the need to verify the notability of the school. I've addressed those aspects, but I'm still concerned about length. How important do you think including the jail for kids reference would be compared to other details?JacDT (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

With the last paragraph taken out (the update on Prop 13), that leaves more space in the article. And I think I can streamline it more. So adding back in that reference should work. In fact, the middle of the article needs to be restructured. I could use input on that. More in the next entry. JacDT (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has done an amazing job on improving the article. As someone from Richmond that attended that school for a terrifying 2 days in the mid 00s I will tell you the cynics called it a dropout factory and the students called it jail for kids specifically because from Cutting Boulevard it has no windows at all and what looks like a double fence with road between even if it's meant to keep the criminals out and the kids in it has an psychological effect of appearing as more of a inpatient institution or jail. So I feel strongly it should be worked in. And what was the FEAST program? WP:PAPER remember if you just executive summarize you can fit a little more in. Want me to get a picture of the place too?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That all helps. And yes, getting a good picture of the school would be excellent. Perhaps two, that is, one of the main quad inside and one of the exterior. Any pictures we use need to be entered into the Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. The information about how to upload is here: Wikipedia:Uploading_images. JacDT (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

FEAST was was a restaurant built inside the school as part of a catering program. The teacher Mike Peritz ran the program, I believe. It offered a model of food service that was so successful, teachers came from all over, even from other states and countries, to learn from it. The students got their training by doing events outside of school, weddings, bar mitzvahs, church dinners, that sort of thing. Apparently the program was so successful that outside catering business complained about it. JacDT (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes let's include it, also the school had a huge turn around in violence and dropping out as a result of a particular principal, the source is the east bay express exposé on the matter in late 00s.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a link or the title for the article? Thanks JacDT (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I found this statement in the scenario 3 citation by Mike Peritz "Much of this improvement is credited to Mr. Julio Franco who served longer than any Kennedy principal, from 2001-2008." That was also in the previous incarnation of the article, before it was deleted. Is that what you meant? On an entertaining note, alamy has a picture of Mr. Franco here: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-principal-of-kennedy-high-school-julio-franco-on-the-richmond-calif-42265976.html JacDT (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember at this point.99.145.194.98 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The collapse

I need to restructure the middle sections about what happened to cause such a dramatic change in the school. It wasn't just Prop 13, though that had a substantial effect, and it wasn't just the bankruptcy. A lot else was going on, including court cases, the loss of industry, social upheaval, and more. I need to find a way to put that into a middle section of the article without it going on too long.

Adkisson sums it up in the following quote: "The storm of dark events that enshrouded the city of Richmond and its unified school district from 1988 to 1993 is almost unbelievable, in retrospect. Economic and social epidemics struck locally, just as the school district was about to undergo its greatest crisis since the city quintupled in population during World War II. ... Richmond was emblematic of trends occurring in urban communities across the country, as the manufacturing sector collapsed and crack cocaine worked insidiously through the inner cities. The result would be a Kennedy High School that was unrecognizable to previous graduates and teachers." (Addison, William Knowles, Kennedy High School: The Fall of an Educational Camelot, Berkeley Journalism, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, 2018).

I could give that quote, and I might, but it seems vague. If I add specifics, they need to be succinct, not only for what Adkisson refers to but also the the court case(s) that preceded Prop 13 and impacted the district's finances. I have some ideas for condensing, and I'll continue to think on them, but I'd prefer not to reduce it all to a list of woes crammed into one sentence. I welcome suggestions. JacDT (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the original wording of this article draws from the "Mike Peritz Proposal, Creating Scenario 3" reference that appears in the citations. If I can restructure the middle section, I can use the Peritz material for the renewal section.JacDT (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here is my suggestion for restructuring the middle sections. I think the second and third section should be combined into one called the "Decline of the district." It would consist of a chronological presentation of what led to the decline, including (but not necessarily limited to)

1) The three Serrano v. Priest California Supreme Court decisions regarding the financing in state public schools and how they backfired in communities like Richmond, increasing their tax burden.

2) Proposition 13 (play death knoll). That is already pretty much done.

3) The financial woes of the district and the unprecedented bankruptcy.

4) The perfect storm of disasters quote I gave above from Adkisson

5) The severe drop in industrial jobs in the region as companies closed, went out of business, or moved, which battered the already bruised Richmond middle class economy.

6) The rise of drugs and gangs, jail for kids, etc.

7) Anything else I've forgotten.

That would be followed by the "Renewal" section. Right now, it's a couple of sentences with a long list of references. I'm thinking of putting in more sentences to describe briefly the programs instead of just citing them. Also, the Peritz Scenario 3 paper has some good material.

Comments welcome and invited. JacDT (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The thing is like this. The article is about the school. It would therefore be inappropriate to make this about the decline of the district. Any mention of that should be done as summarily as possible. It would be best, from the point of view of building an encyclopedia, to add a section about the decline of the district to West Contra Costa Unified School District, and then link to it as follows: decline of the district. Debresser (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Those are good points. I will confine the discussions to the effect on Kennedy. For example, the Serrano v. Priest rulings were meant to help schools that received less tax dollars, and in some places they worked according to their intent. However, for other schools, the rulings actually ended up causing a greater burden, which negatively affected low income schools. From the sources I'm reading, it looks like Kennedy was one of those schools. It also made it easier for Proposition 13 to pass, which added another blow to schools like Kennedy. I will concentrate only on how these affected Kennedy, and keep it brief. Also, I'll try to come up with a better title for that section, one that is less wide. Perhaps "The decline."

The West Contra Costa Unified School District article does indeed need a lot of work. A section like you suggest would be an excellent addition. The challenge there is to keep the article balanced, that is, not concentrate only on the negative aspects of a struggling district. The positive aspects need also to be addressed, or I suspect the article wouldn't present as neutral. A lot of history has gone into the struggles of the district, and the more I read about Kennedy, the more I realize what a cluster-frack has hit the entire district over the last thirty years. It's no wonder people write articles and books about it. Wikipedia is an invaluable public resource, so such an expansion really needs to be done in depth. That would be a big project, though, and require a lot more research than for just one school. I have the editing, writing, and academic background to do it, but I don't know if I have the time. However, I do have some of the research already done. I will put it on the list of potential projects. JacDT (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Online references

I was wondering why two of the references were changed from sources that are readily available online to those that aren't. JacDT (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References to books are not usually linked unless the text in question is available, as it is in some Google books. A link to a source where the book is purchased is useless. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thanks for answering. I had links directly to the text, which is available to read. That is how I got the text; by reading the sources online. I noticed that you removed those links, and I was wondering why. Thanks for any input you can give. JacDT (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

These are the links to the text that I had in before:

This one goes directly to the article about busing and backlash. The full text of the article is there, with the table of contents on the left.

1) https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9h4nb6db;brand=ucpress

This one goes to a pdf of the full text of the book, which can be downloaded by clicking the link.

2) https://epdf.pub/just-schools-the-idea-of-racial-equality-in-american-education.html

I'd like to put those links back in, since the text is available. Do you have any objection? JacDT (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah! I saw your reversions. Many thanks. JacDT (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow up on CoI

Grand'mere Eugene, Thank you for responding to my request for help on the CoI situation. I entered the information on my editor's page as we discussed on the school and my talk page. For the CoI notice you put on the page, is the CoI entry on my editor's page sufficient for its removal? I've taken extra care to write the article in a neutral fashion, making both the pros and cons clear, and referencing all the comments and any quotes with reputable sources. Let me know what you think. JacDT (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven (Editor), thank you for the clean up of the article. That was an excellent job and appreciated!

I do have one question, though. Why did you take out Judy Tyrus from the notable alumni? She is one of the most notable of all those listed. She should have her own Wikipedia page. She is among one of the first black ballet dancers to achieve international fame as a classical principal dancer, and she danced with one of the most prominent dance companies in the country, the Dance Theatre of Harlem. That is the dance equivalent of becoming one of the best football players in, say, the NFL. She later became the curator for the company. I found more references for her than most of the others on the list, including reviews from the New York Times and Washington Post. What makes her even more notable is that in those days very few of the top classical dance academies took black dancers. She not only excelled at the top levels, she did it at a time when there were very few avenues open to her. I would like to add her back in. JacDT (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, JacDT. I empathize with your questions, having gone through a similar process myself about a month ago, but for Sacred Heart on the other side of the Bay. I had to do a COI disclosure as well, except in my case it was because I'm the parent of a current student. The coordinators and habitués of WP:WPSCH have been extremely helpful, as were their guidelines, and it has given me an interest in the Wikiproject as a whole. Ottoump (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The notability issue, as I understand it, would be that for Judy Tyrus to be notable as Wikipedia defines it, she would typically already have a Wikipedia article that reflects that notability. I think there are exceptions for people who suddenly jump into the spotlight such that their notability is taken as a given (and a Wikipedia article about them accepted as imminent and inevitable), but that is pretty unusual. Also, I think Steven (Editor) taught me the rule for citing Notable Alumni: if the article about the alumnus/alumna mentions his/her attendance at the school, then a citation next to their name in the school's Notable Alumni section is neither necessary nor desirable -- a Wikilink to their article will suffice. However, if the person's article doesn't make the connection, then there should be a legit inline citation next to his/her name. Ottoump (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ottoump. Thanks for the response. The Wikipedia guidelines WP:ALUMNI say that if a person doesn't have a WP page then references should be added to show their notability. This is done for other Kennedy alum still in the list. I had five references next to the name Judy Tyrus, including from the Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Memoirs of Blacks in Ballet site. It also included a link to her actually dancing one of the classics with DTH. And I included a reference to an article she wrote as Curator for the Dance Theatre of Harlem. If anything, I thought I had too many references. So I don't see the reason for the deletion. Maybe delete some of the references, but not the entry.

I have a whole list of projects I'd like to work on, including a collection of notable people who need Wiki pages. Judy Tyrus was one of the people on the list. Now that I have more time, I'd like to get to those. Kate Kirby had actually been at the top of the list, but I'm delighted to see that enough other people felt similarly that she now has her own page.

By the way, I just looked at Sacred Heart entry. I enjoyed the article!

Steven, I also have a question in regards to the CoI note you put at the top of the page. The reason I asked for someone to come look at it is because I am an alumni of the school from fifty years ago, which is why I was interested in doing the article (thank you for coming over to look; it is much appreciated). I had found most of the article deleted; the history section was down to about one sentence. If I hadn't written what is currently there, it wouldn't have been done, certainly not in that detail and with that much research. You left most of it intact, with very few changes. Does that mean you found the article unbiased? That kind of research is what I do for a living, and part of my training is to present the work in a neutral manner. I would like to finish the article. I've done most of it, except for completing the shorter section I was working on about the renewal. I had intended that to be one or two paragraphs. As it is currently, it's sloppy and is missing several references I found at the same time I asked for someone to come take a look at the article. Rather than simply saying that the school is getting better and then ending with a long list of references, I would like to give a sentence for at least some of the improvements cited in the references and then put the references inline rather than at the end. How do you feel about my finishing the article? Or if you would prefer I don't, can you complete that section? JacDT (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is polite, aboveboard, and just plain good practice to declare any meaningful connection to an article's subject. While that connection might carry with it an inherent conflict of interest, some of these conflicts are very weak and they don't automatically preclude the COI declarant from editing. For example, Wikipedia is strongly opposed to the staff of a school, or consultants hired by the school, to edit an article about it, just as they get practically apoplectic about people creating or editing articles about themselves (this appears to happen quite a bit). I'm not certain what they'd think about a current or former student at a school editing a school's article, although I'd guess the consensus would be to allow it. For what my opinion's worth, you should be able to edit the school's article, as long as you can keep any bias you have in check, although I'd absolutely steer clear from any coverage of yourself within it. Ottoump (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. It seemed that way to me, but I thought I should talk about it here. I appreciated that several editors came over to take over when my name came up, and also to give me advice on how to deal with the situation. JacDT (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I still need to know what it is that other editors feel I need to fix. No one has actually said that anything in the article is biased. I need to know what people want fixed, if anything. The notice at the top of the page implies a conflict of interest. Please tell me how. For example, I don't see how the autobiography part applies. I don't feel comfortable finishing the article until this is settled. JacDT (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Finishing the article

DeBresser has removed one of the COI templates, with the notation that "being an alumna many years ago is IMHO not sufficient reason to suspect a COI." The main article still states at the top that it may need clean-up because a major contributor (that's me) has a connection to it. My understanding is that Steven (Editor) did that clean-up last night. Is there anything else that needs to be done before that note is removed? I want to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, there is still a notation at the top of the talk page that raises questions about the appropriateness of my contributions specifically. If there is a problem in what I've written, please let me know. I've stated the potential for a COI on my editor's page, I streamlined that page to remove most of my introduction in case my introduction raises questions of autobiography, I've clearly stated a page exists about me elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I've asked any readers of my work to respect Wikipedia policies by not discussing my work in arenas where I am wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat. I'm not sure what else I can do.

I do realize this is an unusual situation. I think it's important to resolve this carefully because it's emblematic of why many writers don't contribute to Wikipedia. If we can do this well, it could provide useful guidelines for authors without suppressing their ability to do for Wikipedia what they do best. This isn't the place for that discussion, but it does pertain to what happens with this article. No one has challenged the notability, writing, quality, or citations for the actual article. No one has said the article isn't neutral. So I'm not sure where the problem lies.

The ideal here is to get the best possible article for the encyclopedia. Leaving it unfinished isn't a good choice. My asking someone else with no connection to the article to finish it places the burden on them to redo all my research, which took me many hours and involved reading several hundred sources. That hardly seems reasonable. I can finish the article, add the demographics with the source recommended by Steven (Editor) in his clean up, and check the entire article for quality of writing and scholarship. It makes sense to have me to do it. I'm trained to do exactly this and I have have 25 years experience in the field. But with two notations suggesting I may have a problem with precisely the things that I am trained not to have a problem with, it doesn't seem appropriate for me to continue. JacDT (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the {{COI editnotice}} template from the talkpage, since I find it redundant to the {{Connected contributor}} template, and also because it sounds overdone, again especially compared to the more fact of the matter language of the remaining template.

Regarding the {{COI}} template on the article, however, I would err on the side of caution and ask for editors at Wikipedia:Peer review to review this article and only remove the template after that. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Thanks. But I thought Steven (Editor) already did a review of the article. He came over from the School Wikiproject where I went to ask for the review. If that isn't sufficient, is it appropriate for me to ask for another review through one of the other procedures given on the link above? Or should another editor do it? In any case, the article needs to be finished, line-edited, and proofed before it goes up for another review. Unless anyone objects, I will try to get that done over the next day, or two days if my other deadlines intervene. But it shouldn't be long.JacDT (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

JacDT, Thanks for your excellent contributions to this and other articles! Since you are not being paid to edit WP, and your track record here shows you understand how to summarize, paraphrase, and quote sources accurately, I for one hope you continue to write and edit for Wikippedia. It's okay to make non-controversial edits directly, but under that policy, if any editor objects, it's not non-controversial. COI is definitely more a problem when editors work on their own bios; under those circumstances, it's very important to follow the COI process, requesting edits on the article's talk page, cumbersome as it may seem: If you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry. To err on the side of caution, you may want to use that process here. Most of us maintain watchlists, and enought editors are watching this article that someone would respond, review the suggested edits, and make them, with attribution to you in the edit summary. Again, thanks for all the work you are contributing! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene, thank you! I will try exactly that for the Judy Tyrus entry. Many thanks for your input JacDT (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi JacDT, apologies for the delay I was doing the cleanup really late last night (around 4-5am I think haha). I was just tidying this talk page, merging sections and archiving threads so things are organized better; please try to keep relevant discussions together. Replying to all the comments above here: You're welcome, glad to help — would you say the logo is clear or a bit blurry? Okay so regarding the Judy Tyrus removal, this was because none of the citations mentioned her attendance at the school, although I couldn't access this one that requires a subscription — does this mention her attendance? This source is a primary source and written directly by her. I'm not too sure about the YouTube reference which I haven't seen being used as a reference, but as YouTube is a social media site, it is a WP:UGC. I couldn't check some of the other alumni to see if its source confirms attendance as it got so late. Please see WP:RS and WP:V which has information about sourcing on Wikipedia.

I think I said to Ottoump about the notable alumni section above (thanks for your comments above), but yeah there's no need to cite their attendance next to their name in the section if it is provided in their bio article. But if the bio article does not have it (I always add them to their bio article) or if the bio article does not exist, then the citations will be needed here. The COI note that was at the top of the article was added by Grand'mere Eugene who has described everything about the COI above very well as well as the other responses, I also want to say thanks and your willingness to discuss and engage with other editors here is really good, I hope you continue to write and edit for Wikipedia (can't remember if I already said this, but the same for you Ottoump) — the COI note is only temporary and per the template description: "alert readers that the article may be biased by a conflict of interest, and to request help from other editors with an article that is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of editing by the subject of the article, or by a person with a close connection to the subject" — once the article is stable and issues have been resolved per discussions on talk page, then the template is removed.

I left the history section mostly intact, only tidying the references and removing some promo words as this section is going to be reviewed by John from Idegon but I did mention in the edit summary about this section needing to be checked. I'm monitoring this article and multiple editors are watching this so I don't see any reason for you to not continue working on the article directly, as long as you ensure it is written from a neutral point of view, sourced from reliable, independent sources, and in line with the school article guidelines (FA/GA US school articles are good examples to look at). The renewal section does need work on, so maybe you can continue to work on this until the other part of the History section has been reviewed? — other editors please comment your thoughts on this which will save on the multiple edit requests? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven (Editor), thank you for all that! Those are excellent suggestions, and I appreciate the work you put into your response and the article. I'm on deadline right now, but tomorrow I will have a chance to go through the links and suggestions you've posted above. That is a good idea for me to finish up the renewal section while the other section is reviewed. I'll also get the demographics section redone with the NCES data. The reason I used the other site is that it is more up-to-date in most places (though not scores), giving results for the current year. The NCES one is a year out of date for the most part, and the last time I checked, the title I data was two years out of date.

So far the only place I've found that states Judy Tyrus is an alum is a posted copy of the school yearbook, which is online and free. I didn't put it in because my understanding was that yearbooks at classmates.com weren't acceptable references for Wikipedia. The New York Times review doesn't refer to Kennedy. I'm sorry it wasn't accessible; I hadn't realized only subscribers could read it. I will keep looking for an indication she attended the school besides the yearbook. There must be something.

The logo looks good to me. That was a good idea to add it.

I also wondered about the YouTube reference. Dance is a visual art form, so that is why I included it. I will look over the links you gave above. If you all think it isn't appropriate, I can take it out. But her performance is so beautiful, it seems a shame not to have it on the page.

Thank you for your kind words about my writing/editing. I enjoy talking projects over with other editors, both as a writer seeking input and an editor formulating ideas. Ultimately I think that leads to a better article. JacDT (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

JacDT, you're welcome and sorry it was a long response, I thought it would be better and make things a bit easier to reply here together instead of the different areas above. That's okay and also there are no deadlines or anything here. Awesome and once you've become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, editing is a breeze. I guess that's the only issue with NCES being a year outdated but reasons for using NCES is because it's the national database of stats for US schools, so by using this we can ensure consistency for all US schools. The infobox has enrollment, teaching staff and ratio sourced to NCES and as demographics data is also available on the same page, the same reference can be used. There is also a dedicated NCES infobox parameter, and templates for both public and private schools.

I see, yeah classmates is not the best source and it's also a social network site. That's okay, there's nothing wrong with adding subscription required newspapers, they are acceptable on Wikipedia. If there are ways to access it freely that can be helpful but don't let this deter you from adding them. All you need to do is add |url-access=subscription to the reference so that it displays a padlock next to it and tells the reader a subscription is required. You can see what this padlock looks like and the other access indicators that are available here. You can see this padlock in action in the Judy Tyrus draft which brings me to the second part and in response to your comment in the Tyrus section below: There is potential for her to have an article, good job on those references Grand'mere Eugene, especially the one that verifies her attendance at the school — should be fine to add her back with this reference. Regarding the YouTube reference, I understand but what's being referenced is the question, also can't really be used for notability and the YouTube as a reference concern. I was going to say that you could add that as a link under External links in her bio article/draft, but can see Grand'mere Eugene had already done this. As for the draft, there are no deadlines but may be deleted after six months if it's not been edited, however it can be restored; more info here.

Was wondering about logo as sometimes I'm seeing it a bit blurry, maybe an early night is needed haha. You're welcome and I agree, it does ultimately lead to a better article — a major benefit of having a collaborative encyclopedia. Debresser's comment below has said pretty much what I was going to say but yeah the COI isn't a major concern here and the steps that have been/being taken so far are good. Majority of school articles are in a very poor state (like this one was), have been stagnant for years/months, and vandalism. The overall aim is of course to have more FA/GA standard school articles but who knows, maybe you can achieve this if you're really interested, but thank you for taking an interest to work on this Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven(talk), that's excellent information. Thanks too for the suggestion that I consider doing other school articles. As I was working on this, and talking to Debresser about doing an update on the West Contra Costa Unified School District, I did think of working on pages for other schools in the district. It would help give background for doing the WCCUDD page. That's a big job, though. I have some deadlines outside of Wikipedia to meet (those are what pay the bills; as a matter of principle, I would never take pay for work associated with Wikipedia. Working here is my way of donating to the encyclopedia, which I consider among the most valuable tools available in the web). Once I do that, I hope to work on the Tyrus and Oda pages, and perhaps some other high schools. And I agree about the late nights! I do that, too. JacDT (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting other editors to make your edits for you is a very good idea on an article about yourself, or even let's say a firm you work at or school you learn at presently. In other words, in cases where the connection is of a kind that a real conflict of interest is a likelihood. However in this case, where we are talking about an alumna of the school, and even that a few decades ago, that rather cumbersome procedure is really not necessary. I might add, in line with Grand'mere Eugene's comment above, that you have proven yourself beyond all doubt capable of good edits "despite" having a certain connection to the subject of this article. Just to remind editors here, that it is only logical that editors write about subjects they have some degree of first-hand knowledge about. Without that, Wikipedia would be lacking a lot of material! Debresser (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, many thanks. I am going to get to work on the Renewal section now. Best -- Cat JacDT (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Judy Tyrus (and Randy Oda) notability

{{request edit}} I would like to request that Judy Tyrus and Randy Oda be returned to the list of notable Alumni on the John F. Kennedy High School (Richmond, California) page. Judy Tyrus is among of the first black ballet dancers to achieve international fame as a classical dancer, and she danced as a principal with the Dance Theatre of Harlem. She later became the curator for the company. What makes her even more notable is that in those days very few of the top classical dance academies took black dancers, which made it difficult to obtain the necessary training, networking, or opportunities to excel at the top levels of the profession. She not only excelled at that level, she did it at a time when there were very few avenues open to her. The references I included to establish notability include The New York Times, The Washington Post, Memoirs of Blacks in Ballet (see also https://mobballet.org/index.php/about-us/ for a description of the ballet project), an article by Tyrus at the Dance Theatre of Harlem site, and a video of Tyrus performing the Pas de Deux Camponês from Coppélia.

People tend to know sports more than the world of ballet, which is one reason why sports figures appear so much more often on notable alumni lists. I'd like to see a more varied range of notable alumni. To a trained dancer, it is obvious from the video that Tyrus is among the top of her profession. However, editors on Wikipedia can't be expected to be familiar with every art form and its nuances. The links to the Washington Times and New York Times offer reviews that indicate her status. Such newspapers don't review dance companies or dancers who aren't notable.

These are the references I originally gave in the entry for Tyrus:

• The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/04/05/dance/cce66afe-c2fa-4244-b54e-0139522d2bad/
• The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/27/arts/review-ballet-a-giselle-set-in-louisiana.html
• Memoirs for Blacks in Ballet: https://mobballet.org/index.php/2018/08/23/judy-tyrus/

• Dance Theatre of Harlem: https://www.dancetheatreofharlem.org/2018/12/18/looking-back-looking-forward/

• Pas de Deux Camponês from Coppelia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3kFFzdhV5A

Randy Oda has less references than Tyrus, but pages appear on Wikipedia about his work. He partnered with Tom Fogerty after Fogerty left Creedence Clearwater Revival, and they formed the band Ruby. They also did the album Sidekicks released by Fantasy Records. He worked with Eddie Money, as well, and also a project with Arnold Schwarzenegger

These are the references I originally noted in the entry for Oda:

• Allmusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/randy-oda-mn0000397161/credits

• Eastbay Times: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2015/01/21/chris-treadway-world-series-trophies-playland-reading-benefit-and-garage-band-reunion/

Thank you for your time. JacDT (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted two draft articles, Draft:Judy Tyrus and Draft:Randy Oda. I used headers to structure the article in a comon format for WP:BLP articles, but if they don't work for you, you are welcome to add/subtract more appropriate headers and sub-headers. You are free to edit, as are other editors, with the only caveat that "abandoned" draft articles can be deleted if there are no edits for 90 days. Let me know if you need help with any oher template or formatting issues. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the edit request template, I've inactivated the one which was placed under the preceding section (I believe it was meant to be placed under this section). As the COI editor may know, WP:ALUMNI states that any names to be included should meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. As the two suggested names are still in the draft stage, it can be said that their notability has not yet been ascertained (at least from an article-creation standpoint). Not wanting to put the cart before the horse, I believe that the request to add those names should wait for those articles to be created (and I don't see any problem with at least one of them being created) — after which, the {{request edit}} template would then be appropriate to use. Warm regards,  Spintendo  22:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Spintendo, I completely agree that before adding the any alums to the JFK High School article, the subjects should have WP bios. Thanks for stating that clearly. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene and Spintendo that looks like a good idea. They do need pages, and this gets them started. Thanks! JacDT (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene and Spintendo The criteria for inclusion is notability. You seem to have fallen prone to a logical fallacy. Having an article on Wikipedia proves notability, but the lack of an article does not prove the opposite. It is very likely that a person who does not have an article, is still notable. After all, Wikipedia is a project in progress. I do agree that lack of a Wikipedia article is reason to carefully check notability, sure, before including such a person in an alumnae list, but a requirement of having a Wikipedia article is not a valid substitute for the notability criteria. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Meh, po-tay-to, po-tah-to. You are almost correct: notability is one criterion for inclusion on a school's alumni list, but there also needs to be a statement in a reliable source that the subject attended or graduated from the school, and a school's yearbook is not a reliable source. Practiclly speaking, to meet the second criterion often requires a much deeper dive into sources about the subject, and I find it more efficient to keep track by building a draft. In some cases, a notable subject has had nothing published about high school attendance, but there are plenty of sources meeting WP:GNG. For these two particular people, I have found WP:RS published statements for each supporting alumni status at JFK High. However, the sources for Randy Oda I have found so far do not meet the WP:N standard because the articles have only passing mentions or playlists of music he has performed/written. True, he did join John Fogerty of CCR fame in the band Ruby, but sources about him lack in-depth coverage. Sometime about 1983 he moved to Hawaii and went into real estate sales, as there are lots of ads from that period; there are 2 later editorial pieces, one a primary source which he wrote as a middle-school counselor, but nothing else in depth (so far) about his life. In the process of starting a draft, I'm almost ready to conclude he does not meet the notability standard. For Judy Tyrus, on the other hand, my NYT serach turned up 40+ articles about her, her performances, her career as a curator, and some articles she has written. I have not yet read all these sources, but I expect she meets the notability standard. In sum, drafting an article helps me decide on notability issues, and if an article results, all the better. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, that makes sense. Grand'mere Eugene found a strong reference for verifying that Tyrus attended Kennedy and added it to the draft of the Tyrus page. It looks here like the consensus is that it is okay to add Tyrus back to the list, as long as we give that reference. I'd like to keep the page Grand'mere Eugene set up; I'd planned to do one eventually for Judy Tyrus, and this helps add the activation energy to get over maximum (my chemistry background is intruding :-)). Once that page goes live, we can link to it instead of using an inline reference in the Kennedy article. Thanks again, everyone! JacDT (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Athletics

Steven (Editor), thanks for the clean up on the Renewal section. That looks good. I like the idea of having a separate athletic section. If we do that, though, it needs a fuller summary of the athletic program, which has always been one of the school's strong points. The two samples I used in the renewal section were just met as illustrations of the improvements. I do think putting athletics in a separate section is the way to go, but it might be appropriate to include a few more sentences. To give an idea what I mean, here is a quote from the Camelot paper. I'm not suggesting we put the quote in the article, and it contains extra information that isn't needed, but I think if we have a separate section for athletics, we should give at least some sense of the extent of the successes in that program:

In 1984 the Kennedy Eagles beat archrival El Cerrito High for a North Coast Section championship in a hotly contested game at the Oakland Coliseum remembered forever in local lore as the “Soul Bowl.” The team featured two players, Terry Obee and Rod Moore, who would later play in the NFL, and a total of five who received Division One college football scholarships. For the rest of the decade and through at least 1992, Kennedy would send at least one player every year to a Division One college football program on scholarship. Football games were an event in the community, broadcast on local television and radio, and as many as four and five thousand fans attended big matchups such as Homecoming. The spirit of the school, which had always had a robust student life with clubs and activities, also remained intact. “It was a lot of things socially, and positive that you could get involved with when I went to school here,” said Rae Jackson, a former Kennedy player who attended from 1984 to 1987 and now teaches at the school. Students started their own fraternities, Jackson said, and there was break-dancing in the hallways, lunchtime dances and step shows on the open-air Kennedy mall. Athletes felt no stigma taking part in academic clubs. “You had the debate team, you had the chess club, you had the computer club, I mean the list goes on and on and on of activities that you could find your niche and fit in,” he said. “I used to mess around with the guys in the Chess club.”

JacDT (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

JacDT, I consolidated the references into a single MaxPreps reference, although some of the crowdsourced aspects give me pause about its accuracy. It would be worth double-checking with the school website, at least, and perhaps finding a definitive secondary reference from the governing athletic body.

Ottoump, much appreciated. I thought there must be a better way to do this references. I will look for a definitive secondary reference as soon as I get a chance. JacDT (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

JacDT, you'd think that a definitive reference would be the North Coast Section itself, and in fact its directory looked promising. But for every school I've looked at, and for every sport, it declares "Does Not Field Sport" in the rightmost column. NCS's site maintenance leaves a lot to be desired. The school's own webpage might well be the best source for this, and while it takes some navigating through quite a few broken links, at least a list of sports comes up.

Pace your comments above, I wouldn't put the historical significance of the ebbs and flows of the sports program in here; I'd put it in history. I also wouldn't highlight individual athletes in this section, as this should be covered in the Notable alumni section.

Click 'show' to view athletics task list

Some tasks I'd recommend in this section (replace with  Done when finished): Status Task  Not done Find better reference for list of sports  Done Move reference on Eagles mascot origin to this section.  Done Specify which conference(s) the sports play in, and the region  Not done Move to History any content that is primarily pertinent to indications of school vitality  Done Research regional championships; display as appropriate  Done Research badminton (on NCS-CIF site)  Done Research baseball  Done Research basketball  Done Research cross country  Done Research football  Done Research golf  Done Research softball  Done Research soccer  Done Research tennis  Done Research track & field  Done Research water polo  Done Research volleyball  Done Research wrestling Ottoump (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Request Edit Function on WP

Upstream in this discussion, several editors referred to the Request edit function of Wikipedia (Grand'mere Eugene, Steven (Editor) , Debresser,  Spintendo ). If it is what it sounds like--a means for the subject of an article to request a change to the article in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines--then this is significant in (good) ways which I don't think are fully utilized by the encyclopedia. I'm hoping you all can refer me to a page where I can continue this discussion. I'm particularly interested in how to set up a page to start such a project as described below. The current SFWA president is also interested in developing such a project. It could be beneficial for both Wikipedia and writers in general.

This describes what I'm looking for, and also gives some history about how the proposal first arose.

Some years ago, I was president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. One of the topics brought before me was a difficulty authors had in working with Wikipedia. There is an inherent tension generated by the interaction, where WP editors wish to ensure an article's neutrality and the subjects of the pages wish to ensure their accuracy. None of the authors I spoke with were aware the "Request edit" option exists. I'm not sure Wikipedia realizes how important this function is. The pages for many writers have mistakes, inaccuracies, are incomplete, or otherwise need development. The person who is most aware of what the page needs is also the person least able to make those changes according to WP policies and guidelines.

Wikipedia is not considered a promotional device by most authors; far better means exist than an encyclopedia. What most would like is an accurate, unbiased article. From the Wikipedia's point of view, any input from the subject of a page presents a conflict of interest, and this can be true even if that isn't the intent of the subject. It's not a small matter; this is the largest encyclopedia in the world, with a staggering amount of information, and to maintain the reputation of the encyclopedia, it's vital it maintain neutrality, provide a thorough presentation of cited works, and preserve quality. The tension comes from authors feeling they have no recourse. Ironically, the very policies intended to prevent bias end up making some authors think a bias exists. Most are not familiar with editing on Wikipedia, nor do they wish to become involved at that depth. Many have encountered what they feel is hostility when they tried to figure out what was going on with their page. However, it is clear from the superb interactions I received here that the environment is much better than perceived.

Authors could contribute a great deal to the Wikipedia in general, and I suspect more would if the tension over their own presence could be alleviated. However, it is daunting to figure out what is going on at the encyclopedia. Most authors have no clue that their interactions here may go against expected policies and guidelines. Very few know how an editor's page works, for example, how to sign, how to build a history, all of that. I learned more in editing this article than I learned in the previous ten years. I could do that because I'm retired from teaching and have the time to seek out help and explore. Most authors don't have that time or can't afford to take it.

In the SFWA discussions, I suggested we send someone to Wikipedia with a proposal about working together on a collaborative project to pair WP editors with authors. The goal was to allow authors to work with WP editors in a non-confrontational way to improve the content of their pages in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. The editor could mentor the author about policies and guidelines, not just for their own page, but for the Wikipedia in general. I hoped the project could include an application process for authors without a page, where they could request an editor determine the notability of their work and, if acceptable, to write a page for the author. This could also help increase the presence of minority subjects less often represented on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Systemic_bias). I also hoped that if a better relationship could be forged between our communities, then more authors and editors outside of WP would be motived to contribute to the encyclopedia in ways not connected to their own work. Everyone benefits.

I couldn't find a volunteer for the position. Part of the problem was the perceived animosity I mentioned above, but I don't think that alone would have prevented my finding someone for the project. It was also the lack of anyone at WP to contact about setting up the discussion. WP is huge and sprawling, and even if you know the culture here, it can be a large time sink to find what you need. No one wanted to start posting on pages in public with questions about a project when we didn't have any idea how it would work.

However, if I understand the "request edit" correctly, this goes a good distance toward developing such a partnership. If it is correct that an author may submit a requested change to their page via this method, then this is huge. I know of no authors who are aware of it. That doesn't mean none are, but when this came up during my tenure as SFWA president, no one I talked with was aware it was possible.

After seeing how well collaboration can work here, I think this could work well. If such a project existed--and became well known to the writing community--it could lead to improved relations and possibly increased contributions by such authors to the rest of the encyclopedia. Authors like to do what they do best, which is write; if they feel that the environment welcomes their participation, many may get involved. JacDT (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Principals

I found another reference to Richard Lovette, the school's first principal, that doesn't incorporate the offensive headline. It's a much shorter mention and in what seems like a less prominent publication. The new reference is here. Any thoughts on which one is better, anyone? Ottoump (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I remain unclear as to why there's such a void of information on principals from the 80's and 90's. Ottoump (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Found Sylvester Greenwood and Lavonya DeJean. Still spotty. Ottoump (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The list looks good, so far. I'll see if I can find any of the missing principals. I'm still looking for a picture that can be used in the Commons. Also, I put the demographics section back in, this time with the original (correct) reference. JacDT (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ottoump, I did some cleanup in the section and good work on the list of principals — do you have a source for Julio Franco (2001–2008)? Demographics looks better now JacDT, Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven (Editor), I neglected look for anything on Mr. Franco because he was listed in the article, and hoped one of the existing references might cover it. But I haven't checked back. Ottoump (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ottoump, I completely forget Julio was mentioned in the history, and yes the reference confirms the year right so all good. Also, the reference happens to have a list of the principals Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added the remaining ones and sorted the dates, no more circa dates now. The reference does say LaToya Williams from 2008 but the article has Roxanne Brown-Garcia so I'm confused haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

20 lashes with a wet noodle to me on that, Steven (Editor). I had checked out Peritz, of course, but missed the list of principals! That would have saved so much work. Oh well. Do we even want the multiple references now, or should we get rid of the newspaper refs? Ottoump (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes we miss things it happens haha, the newspapers refs are good secondary sources but they don't seem to say when they were appointed as Principal, so I assume you used the year of the newspaper publication for the dates right? I'd leave them for now, another reviewing editor may remove them but I found reading those newspapers from so long ago pretty interesting, some could probably be used in the article such as the one about its forensic team being named the number one unit in the state by the National Forensics League which may something worth including — there is already a mention of the League in the history section. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, Steven (Editor), I used the pub date if it was contemporareous, and I recall that in a few instances there was something like "since becoming Principal in December" text that referred to a transiton. Interesting about the Brown-Garcia/Williams date conflict. Ottoump (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ottoump, I see, those few instances ones should definitely be kept, but I would keep the others too, as they could be used elsewhere in the article and can be removed easily. I've added LaToya Williams but with the ending year as a question mark — it looks like she may have been a principal for a short period, but will need to find a source so a year can be added Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ottoump (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work on those. One question: for the references you give from the Newspapers.com archives, how to you get them to show up so well here? When I tried to enter them, they came up as paywalled.

For the references to the Addison article, how about putting it just on the header for principals instead of on each entry for most of the principals. It could be more efficient that way. JacDT (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

JacDT, they would need to be done as "clippings" so they can be shared freely. More info on how to do this here. What do you mean by Addison article, I'm confused haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven (editor), thanks for that link. My spell checked "corrected" Adkisson to Addison (it's currently ref #4). What I actually meant, though, was the Peritz reference, #3 currently, that appears for most of the principals. Sorry about the confusion! JacDT (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

JacDT, you're welcome and ah I see that's ok - references can't be added to the heading per MOS:HEADINGS, but I've added "The following is a list of former principals:" with the Peritz reference, is this better? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! JacDT (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Some parked references

These might have one or two nuggets in them: Ottoump (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

notability edits

additions to notable will have their own article. additions without article will be removed as lacking notability. thanks for your time, s 24.17.106.158 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)