Talk:Lakeview Academy/Archives/2022

This article reads like an advertisement in parts...

Fair use rationale for Image:Newlion logo.jpg
Image:Newlion logo.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Motto
The motto is "Veritas et Virtus" and not "Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos"

as shown in https://lakeviewacademy.wikispaces.com/file/view/Student+%26+Parent+Handbook.pdf and https://www.momtrusted.com/childcare/childcare-in-gainesville-lakeview-academy-839d051c6119

I have no idea who was the funny guy with the previous "motto"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matia.gr (talk • contribs)

Editors invited
I've asked other editors to look at this page. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Need review of a source cited in article
I am questioning the verifiability of a source on this article and would appreciate editors looking at it. The first source cited (by Monica Blair) is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines as it is a master’s thesis and is not shown to have “significant scholarly influence.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreliable_source%3F --Smileykaye (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to follow the talk history here and am a mite confused. Didn't you used to edit as Sondra at Lakeview Academy? Jacona (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too? Smileykaye, do you work at the school, and you're trying to find a way to remove the "segregation academy" bit from the article?  I also found which corroborates the masters thesis. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I am questioning both sources, but thought I would start with the master thesis first as it does not meet the standards set in Wikipedia's guidelines regarding scholarship work. In regards to the other source Magnolia677 referenced as corroborating the thesis, it is a secondary source that includes Lakeview Academy only one time. That one mention is cited/attributed to an unpublished/self-published source that was written five years prior to the founding of Lakeview Academy.--Smileykaye (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you address the questions above? Did you previously edit as Sondra at Lakeview Academy? What is your association with Lakeview Academy? Thanks. Jacona (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your question is irrelevant to this topic. The focus of the discussion is whether or not the source cited meets Wikipedia's guideline as a reliable source. As a master's thesis, it does not.
 * Not nice. I added a link this source in my comment above, and you removed it.  That is not permitted on Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , why are you being evasive? It is difficult to have a conversation when people are anonymous, and one person appears as two...In your first wikipedia edit as Smileykaye, you said "I am done here" as if you were User:Sondra at Lakeview Academy. I just want to know if I'm talking to one person or two.Jacona (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I did not mean to delete your link. I clicked on it to see what you were referencing. If it was removed on my part, it was in error.--Smileykaye (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ,I'm sure you also noticed my questions. Could you be bothered to respond? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am an employee of the school and have updated my account to reflect that. I am questioning the verifiability of two sources cited in this article. The first source cited (master's thesis by Monica Blair) is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines as it is a master’s thesis and is not shown to have “significant scholarly influence.” The third source by Winfred E. Pitts is an unreliable source. Reference is a secondary source that mentions Lakeview Academy only one time. That one mention is cited/attributed to an unpublished/self-published source that was written five years PRIOR to the founding of Lakeview Academy. Therefore, we are questioning the validity of both sources. As per the guidelines of Conflict of Interest, I did not edit the article itself, other than to add the "Verification Needed" tag, but instead reached out to others in the Talk page of the article to request a review of those two sources to determine their validity.
 * Well....you did edit the page several times prior to disclosing your conflict of interest, and you've totally avoided answering about your use of multiple accounts. It is interesting that, 5 minutes after belatedly disclosing your conflict of interest, "Sondra's" user page was deleted because "Sondra" after two years picked that exact moment to request it be deleted because they weren't using the account anymore. That's not so big a deal, but it just makes it hard to accept anything you say in good faith when you won't even take responsibility for your own edits. Jacona (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether is also  is completely irrelevant: all they needed to do was acknowledge a conflict of interest, which I note they have now complied with. We have no right to know of clean starters' previous accounts: they were not blocked, they do not overlap, so there is no question of socking or evasion. Refactoring the sourcing, I agree that an MA thesis is not reliable. As such, I have removed the three instances of its use from the article. In one case, I found another source for the cited material; in another it was backed by an RS; in the last I could not duplicate the source so the material regarding enrollment has been removed. Per WP:ONUS, it should not be restored without a solid consensus. Cheers,    SN54129  13:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)