Talk:Lyman School for Boys

Untitled
I have no clue about "wikify". I wrote this page to the best of by ability. It is written according to the Chicago Manual of Style, properly punctuated and properly spelled.

If anbody knows what the nasty-gram about 'wikify' means, please fix. Somebody wrote at the bottom that it needs a "Category". I don't know how to do this. The catagories are "Historic Places" or "The first reform school". I haven't seen a 'Catagory' seen on other pages so I don't have a clue.

by LymanSchool.


 * If you have something legitimate to add, then please do so. I have not seen your previous edits, so I can't comment on them. Try to have it sound encylopedic and quote your sources. 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Better sourcing and NPOV tone needed
This article currently has two serious flaws that need to be addressed:
 * It's inadequately sourced. In an article that's this long, and that makes this many points about various topics, simply listing a few sources at the bottom of the article is not enough; the article needs to clarify which sources are being relied on to make each of its points. For example, the article says that "institutional folklore" said that children were killed and buried.  Which of the article's sources discusses this "institutional folklore?"  This statement in the article needs a footnote (which can easily be added with the tag), saying which source makes this claim.
 * Giving more detailed sourcing would also help solve another problem with the article, its non-NPOV tone. Currently, basically everything in the article -- even the points likely to be very controversial -- are stated as if they're unassailable fact.  For example, the article repeatedly says that the Massachusetts juvenile justice system was corrupt and denied the juveniles' constitutional rights.  That may well be true, but it's highly unlikely to be uncontroversially true.  And if there's controversy about it, it's inappropriate for the article to state it as a fact.  It can say, for example, "The Supreme Court held in X v. Y that the Massachusetts juvenile justice system denied constitutional right Z"; or "Attorney and author T. W. Soandso documents in Some Book that Massachusetts courts routinely denied right Q during this time period."  (Of course, for balance, the article should also mention and cite any notable sources that say this isn't true.)  But the point is even somewhat controversial, the article can't simply say "The Massachusetts juvenile justice system denied rights Q and Z". Kickaha Ota 06:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir: The sources listed at the botton show that the information presented is true.


 * Sources

The book, Abominable Firebug was written to tell the story about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's abuse of children and one person's ability (with the help of many mentors) to become successful in spite of that abuse. If you had read it, you would know that there were no "civil rights" afforded to children during the time-frame that the Lyman School for Boys was in existance. It documents, not only the day-to-day activities of the Lyman School, but also the rape of children at the Roslindale Massachusetts detention center.

The book Stubborn Child, again, demonstrates this exactly and, in fact, documents abuse of children under the protection of the Massachusetts Youth Service Board. This book, written by Mark Devlin, is a definitive work. He was eight years old when the courts declared him a "Stubborn Child" and sent him off to live in detention centers and reform schools.

The third book cited, Last One Over the Wall was written by the person who closed these institutions after discovering and documenting the horrific abuse of children at the Lyman School, the Roslindale Detention Center, the Industrial School at Shirley, and the Bridgewater Reformatory. This also is a definitive work. When Jerome Miller, its author headed up the Massachusetts Youth Service Board (YSB), the first thing he did was close all these institutions. The second thing he did was to change the YSB's name to the Department of Youth Services (DYS). All this stuff is fact. I could have cited Leaf's Master's thesis as well but I fould that it is no longer available on the net.


 * Folklore

The folklore was quoted as exactly that, folklore. Again, if you had read any of the provided sources, you would have learned that the Lyman School for Boys had no locks on the doors of the buildings where the students (inmates) lived. Therefore, if one was so inclined, he could run away. However, there was very severe punishment for anybody who ran away and then got caught. This was covered in Abominable firebug. The folklore about actually being killed if caught, was not discounted by the masters (the guards). Whether or not it was true, the mere existance of the thought of being killed was one of the elements that helped keep boys from running away. Again, if you read any of the documentation, this would be clear.


 * About the lack of civil rights for juveniles in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Quoting from the first location cited (infanticide): As was the case in Germany extreme discipline characterized family life in puritanical colonial America and parents were given extensive liberty to punish their children, even to the point of death. In 1646 the General Court of Massachusetts Bay had enacted a law where "a stubborn or rebellious son, of sufficient years and understanding, " would be brought before the Magistrates in court and "such a son shall be put to death." "Stubborn child laws" were also enacted in Connecticut in 1650, Rhode Island in 1668, and New Hampshire in 1679.

Quoting from Chapter 13 of Abominable Firebug:

The way it was supposed to work is that juvenile offenders would only spend a few days at the Center to undergo some evaluations and tests. One of the evaluations was supposed to be whether the detainee had actually done something wrong. After the tests were completed, the Youth Service Board would meet and, considering the results of these tests, determine to which facility, if any, the youth would be sent. This should have taken just a few days.

In fact, there were no tests. There were no evaluations, just the warehousing of the boys until the larger institutions were able to accommodate their admission. Since many institutions were above capacity, detainees would simply wait until there was an opening at a target institution such as Lyman School. The selection of these target institutions seemed to be made entirely according to the age of the offender.

There was never any consideration given as to whether or not the detainee had actually committed an offense! The courts were not allowed to conduct trials, and the Youth Service Board failed to perform its function as specified by law. Let me make this perfectly clear. Children did not have any rights in the state of Massachusetts. There were no trials provided for juveniles because the 1948 Youth Service Act was never fully implemented.

The Board met each Wednesday. Finally, my Wednesday came and went. “Next week,” I was told. Two weeks later, I did get to see the Board. I was shown into a room where three persons sat at a long table. The room was somewhat different because the windows were like household windows and did not contain the industrial-strength glass with its embedded chicken wire like the others. The bright outside light shone into a window, making the rest of the room comparatively dark, so it seemed as though I was seeing the light at the end of a tunnel. The man at the head of the table, Mr. Turley, introduced himself by extending a hand that was as large as a ham. He asked me to be seated. In his other hand there was a manila folder containing a single sheet of paper. He looked at the paper and frowned. “Reviewing the specifications, we hereby sentence you to the Lyman School for Boys in Westborough, Massachusetts, until such time as you have earned 700 credits. Any questions?” I shook my head no. “Dismissed,” was his reply.


 * Remarks

So, before stating that it's not properly documented, please review the books. If you are so inclined, please update the text to show whatever you want, but don't claim that it's not documented.

LymanSchool 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the point I was making. I did not say that the various claims in the article are false.  I didn't say that the claims in the article aren't documented -- I said that the article currently doesn't make proper use of that documentation, because the article don't say which sources back up each claim. I also said that potentially-controversial claims in the article are written as "X is true" rather than "X, Y and Z say that X is true."
 * You need to remember what makes a Wikipedia article different from an essay or a research report. Someone writing an essay or research report on the Lyman School would look at the available information, maybe add in some original research, and try to answer the question "What really happened there?"  In other words, the goal of an essay or research report is "What's the truth about this issue?"
 * It's very important to understand that that is not the goal of a Wikipedia article. One of the three cornerstone policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  A Wikipedia article about X doesn't try to answer the question "What's the real truth about X?" It tries to answer the question "What have credible, notable sources said about X?"  That's why phrasing of potentially controversial points is so important.  If sources A, B and C say "X happened", then a Wikipedia article should say exactly that -- "A, B, and C say that X happened."  If the Wikipedia article simply says "X happened," with footnotes talking about sources A, B, and C, then the article is making a claim of truth, not just verifiability -- in other words, the article is implicitly saying "A, B, and C are right about X, and anyone else who disagrees is wrong."  And that's something that a Wikipedia article simply should not do on any potentially controversial topic.
 * Finally, you say that if I object to the article, I should review the books and then make changes to the article on my own. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. Yes, I most certainly could do that.  But the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants to include information in the article, not on the editor who questions its appropriateness.  A Wikipedia editor doesn't have a duty to do research before questioning whether an article is inadequately sourced.  If the article doesn't make the source of a particular piece of information clear, any Wikipedia editor has the right (and in some cases the responsibility) to remove that information.  I certainly don't want to remove any information from this article; but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia places the burden of proof on you as the provider of the information. Kickaha Ota 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In response: I put in some text, but I don't understand how to make it appear in the document. LymanSchool 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great start; thank you for doing that. The trick (which I forgot to tell you) is that you must add a tag to the document; that tells the Wiki engine where it should put the footnotes. I've gone ahead and done that, and also rewritten your references slightly to use the preferred format which shows up nicely in the user's browser. Basically, the first time you use a given source in the article, you should pick a name for it; from then on, you can just refer to it by name, without having to give the details again.  So if I want to refer to Some Important Book by Some Author in three places in the article, then the first time I give it a name and give the actual reference, like this:

To refer to the same book again later, I just do this: Again, thanks for the additional sourcing; hopefully this extra information will let you add more source references more easily. Kickaha Ota 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I will add some more references later. I need to take a "work break." LymanSchool 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I added enough references and links to satisfy questions about controversal areas. Certainly, there are some things that cannot be referenced because they are generally known so nobody bothered to write them down, or this author remembers them from first-hand experience. One must understand that this institution is of Historical signifigance because it was "strange", an early artifact of juvenile law in Massachusetts. For instance, this institution existed WAY before the Maranda decision. LymanSchool 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You've certainly done a lot. There's always room for improvement, but the article's sourcing has greatly improved in the last few days. I've removed the "unreferenced" tag. Kickaha Ota 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Referencing
Somebody claimed that there were not proper references????!!!


 * 1.^ A Brief History of Infanticide. Retrieved on 2006-07-21.
 * This references the stubborn child law.


 * 2.^ a b Miller, Jerome G. (1991). Last One Over the Wall. Ohio State University Press. ISBN 0-8142-0758-8.
 * This tells about the conditions at Lyman School prior to its closing.


 * 3.^ a b c d e Johnson, Richard B. (2006). Abominable Firebug. iUniverse. ISBN 0-595-38667-9.
 * This tells about Lyman School from the perspective of an inmate.


 * 4.^ a b c Leaf, James G. (1998). "A History of the Internal Organization of the State Reform School for Boys at Westborough, Massachusetts (1846-1974)". Harvard University. Doctoral dissertation.
 * This is the definitive history of Lyman School.


 * 5.^ Richard "Dick" Bolt's Lyman School history. Retrieved on 2006-07-22.
 * This is a webpage showing pictures and articles dating back to the 1800s


 * 6.^ Newspaper accounts of Lyman School. Retrieved on 2006-07-22.
 * Newspaper articles from the Worcester Telegram about the Lyman School.


 * So I really dont see what the unreferenced label is all about.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What a stinker!
The article seems to be written by one person, and takes all its "facts" from autobiographical works - hardly reliable references. "Most" of the children were sent to the school without cause? You'd need an authorative study to support that claim, not some former inmate's memory. As an earlier commenter said, this is pure POV, and should be rewritten entirely by someone with a balanced interest. 72.93.174.155 (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing a self-published book
I've pulled citations to a self-published book in this article. The inflamatory claims in the book and the Wiki article are not supported anywhere else. A Wikipedia article should not be based on the claims of one person, whether from their own blog or from a self-published book. The fact that these claims were made as fact in the main body of the article and not in a 'Controversies' section makes it worse. Any reform school that was open for 100 years is going to have some sad stories associated with it. They don't belong in the main body of a short article.

MarkinBoston (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

General Reference Section
Added a General References section with links to early State documents for anyone interested in researching this topic or willing to update this article. I'll add additional links to this section as I come across them. --Craig (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lyman School for Boys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815193200/http://infanticide.org/history.htm to http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sherrie Connelly project
Note the tattooed fingers mentioned. What is significance of this? Was this boy someone who went on to a prominent career - for good or for bad? It just seems an odd point to reference. Irish Melkite (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)