Talk:Concord Academy

Formatting
What's the deal with the formatting on this article? Why is it using more html than wiki markup? --Anthony5429 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The only HTML here are comments and code for the green box on the right. If there is a wiki markup method for doing this, go ahead and fix it. chrisjwalk 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rate My Teacher
A discussion of whether school pages can link to ratemyteacher.com is happening over at Talk:MiltonAcademy
 * -- Jeff 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Concordacademy1.jpg
Image:Concordacademy1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Concordacademychapel.jpg
Image:Concordacademychapel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits of 29 September
To the editors that edited this page today: This Wikipedia article does not belong to Concord Academy. It does not belong to the students of Concord Academy, nor is it to be written in a way that is most beneficial to the Academy, its students or their families. This, and every article on Wikipedia is to be written in a manner as to be interesting and useful to the whole English speaking world. There are standards for articles written on schools on Wikipedia (WP:WPSCH/AG) and there are standards for who can and can't be included in "Lists of notable people" in such articles (WP:NLIST). That latter standard says, in short, that unless a person is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, they are not notable enough to be on such a list. Further, said Wikipedia article (or independent references) must show a connection to the school. I admire that you want to keep up your school's Wikipedia article. As you do so, however, keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are to be written in neutral language and are not for the promotion of the school. In the next few days I will bring this article in to line with the school article guidelines. Please don't add back tons of fluff that isn't interesting to anyone but one with a connection to the school.Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Concord Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100112084648/http://www.concordacademy.org:80/athletics/teams.aspx to http://www.concordacademy.org/athletics/teams.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable teacher
Deleted 3x from the article by user John from Idegon: "Mary 'Molly' Gregory (1914-2007), taught woodworking circa 1950s-1960s; formerly on faculty of Black Mountain College. Reference 1: Reference 2: )" She is of note in various histories of Black Mountain College as a female, farmer, and faculty member. Also the American Craft Council's 20th c. survey timeline describes Gregory as specifically "notable." Why not include her as a notable teacher at Concord Academy? -- 1630ab (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Being mentioned in various books about a larger subject does not make for notability. Having written things does not make for notability. Your link to the craft council doesn't work for me but in any case, being referred to as notable by an organization that the subject apparently belonged to (? Or not....it really isn't relevant) does not make a subject notable. What makes a subject notable is being written about (made note of) in detail in multiple reliable sources. In order to show that she is notable here at this article would push what you write here to a size where it would give undue WEIGHT to a subject that is at best ancillary to the article's subject. So please take the advice I gave you the first time I reverted your addition and write the article first. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I should note that for either teachers or alumni to be included, two things must be shown with reliable sources. First, that the subject meets the notability requirements at WP:BIO. This is generally shown by having an article. It is not required to have an article, just to qualify to have one. However, other editing considerations such as WP:WEIGHT do apply. The other thing needed is a reliable source to attendance or employment. All this is per WP:NLIST and WP:ALUMNI. There are some achievements that make for automatic notability (examples include but are not limited to: Playing in a top level professional sports league, holding a state level or higher elected office, winning a nation's highest military honor, being on an Olympic team). When one of those situations is present, it's relatively simple to add a notable person who does not have an article. However, when the person's notability hinges on WP:GNG, as in the case at hand, you must add multiple references that are entirely independent of the subject, meet reliability standards and discuss the subject in detail. You have not shown that yet and in order to do so, the entry will be a weight issue. John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Acceptable Sources
What is acceptable and what is not when sourcing facts such as demographics? I see contradictory application of whatever principle is in use. In a revision made to the article on 3 March 2016 user John from Idegon gives the reason as "Cite an independent source." The source in question was a page from Concord Academy's website, and version comparison here. However on 16 February 2016 the same user implicitly endorsed such citations in an edit made to a page on a similar institution: version comparison. Why are the citations on the Middlesex page acceptable? Golden122306 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When you are ready to Assume good faith (which is a requirement to edit here), discuss this article (as all articles stand alone) and discuss the edit, not the editor, let me know. Until then you do not have consensus for your change. Do not replace it without concensus. By the way, expecting a reply in 11 minutes is entirely unreasonable. Everyone here is a volunteer just like you, and there is no deadline. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what about my question implied that I expected a reply in any amount of time, Isn't the point of the talk page asynchronous discussion?  The reason I brought you up and your edits is because you are an experienced editor and I wanted to better understand your reasoning behind what I saw as an inconsistent application of a principle that I'm having trouble understanding.  Seeing an experienced editor apply two seemingly different criteria two similar articles is confusing to a new editor.  I asked for clarification about why it was acceptable to use the school's website as a source on one article and not another.  Per the guidelines laid out in WP:OTHERCONTENT, I am not advocating that since the Middlesex article does it, so should this one.  I'm trying to understand the reason for the disparity.
 * I'll reframe my original concerns:
 * — I'd like to clean this page up and make it adhere to Wikipedia's standards, especially as they pertain to proper sourcing. To that effect I made an edit that added two references, one of which was a publication put out by Concord Academy.  This edit was reverted, with the explanation to "Cite an independent source."  After reading through Wikipedia's articles on acceptable sources I understand why this was done.  I do not understand why the other source was removed, which was not published by Concord Academy.
 * — In an effort to better understand what sources are acceptable, I looked to articles on similar topics. I noticed that the user who reverted my edit had also contributed to an article on a similar topic, in which this user did not seem, to me, to be applying the same criteria when it came to the independence of sources.  My question then became, "Which application is correct?"
 * — Now I am told I do not have consensus to make an edit after I added an independent source: www.boardingschoolreview.com. My rationale for adding this source to cite demographic information was that it is in use on other pages of similar subjects, which I realize cannot be the sole reason for adding a source. Can we discuss whether or not this is an acceptable source?
 * — Before I make any additional changes, I'd like to ask whether
 * is acceptable.
 * Golden122306 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Golden122306 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Concord First Assembly Academy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)