Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 1

Untitled comment
it lists tuition at over 220,000 a year, must be a typo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.104.199 (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section
I've removed the further reading section. Again. The book in question has as a subtitle "how one school's vision is changing the world". Worldcat makes it clear that the one school is a school in Chicago here. I clearly understand this is a general book about the Cristo Rey movement (method?), but again, Cristo Rey is not the subject of this article; this one particular school is. It may be a fine addition for the linked article on Cristo Rey; but as a university published academic source, its best use there would be as a source. Here, it seems more promotional of the movement (method?) than informative about the school. If there is a specific fact in this article that is on topic to this article that this book could verify, please add it as a source (with a quote and specific page numbers please). John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mention of this book has been added to the Cristo Rey article and to all 35 articles about Cristo Rey schools. I can see mentioning it in the Cristo Rey article and in the article about the Chicago school, but the rest of the mentions are promotional. Meters (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ? Is there a category for those schools? John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The category is given on the bottom of the page at Cristo Rey Network. Jzsj (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cristo Rey Network Billhpike (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the 35 schoosl listed in Cristo Rey Network. The category actually contains a few additional schools. I'll check if the links are in those when I start cleaning up the other 35. Meters (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that it is precisely by propagating the model and the similarity of the other schools that the model begun in Chicago is changing the world. I think we should have an open discussion of this before you assume that a book on the model is not relevant to every school that closely follows that model. I won't have access to this book until the last week of this month but at that time I will produce what I can on the relevance of the book to various of the other 35 schools. Jzsj (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you added the book to 36 articles, sometimes more than once in each article without having read the book? And you wonder why I'm suggesting that your addition of the book and the other links you added to each article is promotional? Meters (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Say where you read it" follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT Billhpike (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read many quotations and abstracts of it, which come from the book and therefore are "reading the source". Now I'll be looking for references that include other schools besides Chicago. I don't know why you have taken off after these schools, when there is no clear directive that what's in these articles is wrong. And no one proposed to make them exemplary articles, so why don't you let be unless changes are explicitly required, and make reversions with more consideration and respect for others? Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in saying that I am the one who introduced the "Dream" book or the numerous links after the articles. I began work only in April 2015. Please check these articles before that to see all the work of other people that you are reverting. Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that just because a fact is mentioned in another Wiki article doesn't mean that reference can't be made to it to clarify the effectiveness of an institution. Something similar, but not identical, is where schools like Georgetown University go to some length, in their primary article, on topics like athletics and alumni where they also have whole additional articles on the topics. Jzsj (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You are correct that you did not add the original mention of the book to all of the articles. A WP:SPA who ]]was active for all of four days added many of them in 2007. You either tweaked the text of the book mention, added it where it was missing, or added a duplicate mention of it to each of the articles that I checked. You also added a virtually identical list ofmostly inappropriate external links to each article I checked. In the case of this article, you were not even looking at the lbook link you were adding, or you would not have repeatedly added a link that had been hijacked and was entitled "This website is for sale!"
 * I have not made any changes to the other school articles yet, but I'm not seeing any valid argument here that convinces me that the mention of the book is appropriate for this this article. If it's not appropriate for this article then it isn't appropriate for the other school articles (other than possibly the one mentioned in the book) either. Similarly, the collection of external links removed form this article foe3s not belong in the orther school articles eitehr. We have an article about the Network, and that's where most of this beloings. We don't need to copy it into 35 school articles. Meters (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is what I referred you to in the Georgetown article, that just because accomplishments were mentioned in another, linked article, this does not mean that a meaningful, shorter bit cannot be included to give a better sense of what is being described in the institution at hand, even if, as in this case, it comes from the general success of the model. Without such a description immediately at hand a proper sense of what is being discussed would easily be overlooked. I would like to write a few-line summary of the success that the model in general has attained, to replace the full description of the book which someone composed for the articles. Jzsj (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well sourced material that was reverted
Please avoid gross reverts without checking the sources: what part of my additions could you not find in the sources? Jzsj (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think John was able to find the sources, but felt that they violated WP:SELFSOURCE. Billhpike (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope that John will explain himself here. This is preferred before one goes to conflict resolution. If the Boston Globe is a self source then what hope have most high schools of including a description of their success stories in Wikipedia?   Jzsj (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You again added an entire section sourced only to the school. Your statement about corporations was not in any way verified by the source provided. No comment at this time on the Globe bit, but please don't replace any of this content without discussion. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the "good" or "featured" school categories the stringent norms you are enforcing may apply. But most schools freely reference their website if the claims they make are credible, given that school websites are written for their clientele who would be put off if the school was giving misleading statements on its website. The statements about retreats and the modest statement about service seem like the factual statements most schools quote from their websites (unless you are trying to reform most school websites and beginning here; I'm referring to websites that are well beyond the stub stage).
 * Is it proper practice to revert things without having checked to see whether your revert is justified? From the above sections on this page I would say that there are open questions about whether your reverts were justified there, also. As to corporations, the articles quoted include the following:
 * "Its poverty rate in 2013 was 29.2 percent"
 * "Notre Dame students work five days per month at a private company to earn 60 percent of their $12,000 tuition." (That's $7,200 for five, eight-hour work days a month for nine months, or $20/hour).(Ibid.)
 * (I'd also like to add:) "Notre Dame students, who attend a two-week training course in August before starting their jobs."(Ibid.)
 * "Without a doubt the students have proven themselves to be valuable resources in supporting our members and we are already anticipating the benefits that year three of this Work Study Program will bring."

Jzsj (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You used a source from a single company to support a statement that was about multiple corporations. It is becoming quite clear that your intentions here are not to accurately portray what has been said about the school in reliable sources, but to promote the school. Further, two separate administrators at ANI told you I'm not overreaching the guidelines. Please find better sources, accurately portray what they say, stop promoting, or drop it. No one is supporting your position. John from Idegon (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Jzsj: In case you haven't figured it out yet, many editors here are weary of your casuistic splitting of hairs. Wikipedia and most of its editors operate based on well-established principles and guidelines, not on exquisite (although irrational) arguments about exceptions to the rules. (e.g., ALL articles, not just good or featured articles, should adhere to guidelines.) Your constant badgering and questioning of the behavior of well-meaning editors also smacks of WP:UNCIVIL. Please knock it off. 32.218.35.175 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I am an administrator and I find your notion that it is OK for articles that are not yet Good or Featured articles to deviate from our established standards to be just plain wrong. Every edit to every article should improve it, in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. When you ask, "what hope have most high schools of including a description of their success stories in Wikipedia?", the answer is "no hope whatsoever". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for telling promotional stories for any person, business or organization. This is a neutrally written encyclopedia summarizing what independent sources say about a topic and we simply do not tell "success stories" referenced to primary sources. This article does not belong to Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School or its enthusiastic supporters. It belongs to the community of neutral editors and that is not negotiable. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I understood you to want an independent source for information about specifics of the work study program. Since that's not the case, I hope to be able to use the info on the schools' websites to describe their program. What is the likelihood that they are lying when it would put them in trouble with the 100 (more or less) corporations that they are trying to get to buy in on their program? Here we're speaking about knowledge of what is happening; if it gives a good impression of the school it's at least a more solid basis for evaluating a school than all the sports conquests that seem to have a place in Wiki. Isn't this the "common sense" application of the Wiki guidelines that Wiki speaks about? Also, I hope that when those who are getting this article to meet all the Wiki norms for good articles they will nominate the school for the honor they've worked so hard to establish. Jzsj (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sports conquests do not belong in school articles either, although please do not start removing them yourself -- I have removed a few and will remove more. I also remove some of the more tiresome content about marching bands and similar. In general, we don't spend time judging whether a school website is lying or not, because we already know that the school website is designed to market the school. It is an advertising tool. We use it for uncontroversial facts only. By the way, a Wiki is a type of interactive editing environment. Wikipedia is a term used for something much more specific. You can take a look at the Wikipedia article, by the way, to see how many of the positive statements made in that article about Wikipedia, are sourced only to Wikipedia itself. MPS1992 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please take into consideration that a school article can fall into more than one category, like when those supporting the school are doing it for reasons of achieving greater equity or social justice. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages we read that "most articles are within the scope of multiple WikiProjects, and seek(s) to avoid conflicting advice." But there is no project to advance the publication of articles on "social justice". I see the Cristo Rey Model of school spanning the schools and the social justice areas and not fitting into the tight categories of those looking only to standardize all school articles. I commend efforts to improve school articles but I think less rigidity in advancing what you see as ideal and more willingness to respect differences among school types would better serve the overall purpose of Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. Perhaps if all you have is a Jesuit mindset, then everything looks like an issue of social justice. This article is about a school, not about a larger movement to attain social justice. 32.218.34.232 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To acknowledge the fact that these schools are about teaching for the sake of greater equity in society, the Category:Poverty-related organizations should be added on the website of each school. To say it's contained in the Category:Cristo Rey Network is misleading, since that category name says nothing about poverty (though the article makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of each school in the network is to assist economically disadvantaged youth). Why be so opposed to merely adding this very appropriate category? Jzsj (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have already started an RFC on this. There's not much point in going back and adding more to teh earlier threads. Meters (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes
After reading the pages on Template:Infobox school and Template:Infobox school/doc, I find no statement on how the various lines are to be used. In the Template:Infobox school/doc, US schools example, where 6 lines are used on the left to give just six numerals on the right, I consider this a poor example of how to use an infobox. There is no uniformity, and if we were to impose it without justification in established Wikipedia policy, I believe we'd be opting for excessive similarity in infoboxes when the whole page on infoboxes is expansive and suggestive of introducing additional options. Jzsj (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Poverty-related organizations
I seek a consensus on the addition of the Category:Poverty-related organizations to articles on schools in the Cristo Rey Network, and most specifically for this school. My addition of this category was reverted with no reason given but with the proposal that I seek consensus. When one looks at the purpose of Cristo Rey schools – to give underprivileged children a better chance at obtaining a university degree – I think the category is justified. It is also justified by what corporations give as a motive for employing students from these schools. I ask that the category be restored, as justified for all schools in the Cristo Rey Network. These schools are a part of a larger effort to raise people in our (USA) inner cities out of the cycle of poverty. Jzsj (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Category:Poverty-related organizations may be appropriate, but per WP:SUPERCAT, the best solution is to add Category:Cristo Rey Network to Category:Poverty-related organizations. 15:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * GAHHHH., it doesn't have anything to do with one looking at anything. No one is replying to the arguments you've made because you are not making arguments.  All you are doing is telling us how you feel.  I don't care how you feel.  I don't care how  feels, I don't care how  feels, I don't care how 32 feels and I highly doubt any of them really cares how I feel.  Categories, like everything else, need to be based on reliable verifiable independent sources, not your "feelings".  Policies do not dictate content, excepting the very few that are in place to ensure compliance with law.  Policy informs consensus.  Consensus is built by citing sources.  The editor wanting content is responsible for convincing those opposed to the content that it is worthy of inclusion.  You do this by citing sources.  Please stop wasting our time. John from Idegon (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hold that each school belongs in Category:Poverty-related organizations and not just the model. Cristo Rey Network is a member, not a supercategory of Poverty related organizations. And this is as it should be. Unlike all the subcategories of Poverty-related organizations, Cristo Rey Network does not in itself imply any relation to poverty. Each school deserves this tag. I look for consensus that this category may be added to this school, and to the other schools which show the purpose of their founding to be to give a better opportunity to those caught in the cycle of poverty. Across Wikipedia I find no movement to conceal what categories an organization belongs to. Your reference here suggests a change in the present categorization of the network and I hold that its changing would not serve to clarify the nature of this school. Jzsj (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, if the cat is warranted, it should be at the level of  the Cristo Rey Network, not on the individual schools. Meters (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've checked the six mentions of Billpike above but I do not see that he has yet weighed in on this one. Jzsj (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * His is the first reply to you, Jzsj. He failed to sign.  And again you are persisting in making arguments without evidence.  That is nothing but a waste of other editors' time.  Either provide sources to back your arguments or do not make them please.  John from Idegon (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not even a hint in this article or in Cristo Rey Network of the school's or network's goals relative to reducing poverty. Where's the beef? 32.218.42.4 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Poverty-related" is not the same as "reducing poverty". When the article says the schools are "for students who might otherwise not receive a college education" that's poverty-related. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Serving a low-income clientele is not synonymous with "poverty-related". Both St. Vincent de Paul thrift stores and The Dollar Store serve low-income clientele, but they're hardly "poverty-related" programs.
 * You need a source that explicitly says that this school's aims are poverty related. 32.218.42.4 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you check the Category:Poverty-related organizations you'll find these schools very much at home there. And don't confuse NPOs like a St, Vincent de Paul Thrift Store with a business for profit like a Dollar Store. Jzsj (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, categorization, like virtually everything else in Wikipedia, is based on sources.  Please provide actual sources which unequivocally state that this school is a poverty related organization. John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This. You ignored #2. Plus you missed the point of #1 completely. I wasn't comparing the organizations; I was comparing their clientele. If you simply say that an organization serves a low-income population, that doesn't make the organization a "poverty-related" organization. 32.218.42.4 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've responded below by showing that the stated purpose is to serve poor people. Please be clearer on what you see it meaning to call an organization poverty-related, and explain how these schools differ from those organizations actually in the poverty related category. I suggest that's the ultimate test of the meaning of a category, to see the breadth of organizations which this category includes. Jzsj (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's begin with the Cristo Rey Network's stated purpose, and then see how 60 minutes gave one report on how this purpose was being fleshed out. The stated purpose of these schools that follow the Cristo Rey model is to serve “students with limited economic resources”, providing an “ inner-city education that equips students from economically-disadvantaged families”. The 60 minutes report makes it clear that the school caters to inner city youth, quoting an official from the original school in Chicago: "We've had gang problems here. Shootings happen and people die," says Torch. "This is happening in their neighborhoods." … “It happened to Sergio Garcia, who would have been Cristo Rey class of 2004. He was bright, popular, and he was shot and killed on his block last year. It's not known if he was in a gang, but Torch says despite several warnings, Garcia kept breaking the No. 1 rule: no fraternizing with gang members.” … “After Garcia's murder, Torch cracked down, expelling five other boys for associating with gangs. He says that's not hard to do when gang members are friends, neighbors, even family.” … “Ten years ago, this Chicago community had a dropout rate that soared as high as 75 percent. For the Cristo Rey class of 2004, the dropout rate is one percent.” It seems clear to me that from its purpose as realized in any reports you care to check about it, the model was devised to assist youth caught up in the cycle of poverty. That's its stated purpose and evidenced in its clientele. The Network article mentions "low-income families" in the intro and later "students from underserved, low-income communities". Please be clear on what more you want to see and I'll look for it in the many other sources in the Network article that show how this model is being implemented. Jzsj (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All you've done in the above paragraph is repeat six times that the program serves low-income youth. 32.218.42.4 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and in doing so it is realizing its consistently stated purpose. Jzsj (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This conversation should take place at Cristo Rey Network unless there are unique arguments related to this specific school. Billhpike (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason it's taking place here is that I believe this category can be added to the articles on each Cristo Rey school; each one is founded with poverty alleviation in mind. As their motto says, "transforming urban America, one student at a time". Jzsj (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So because you say so? Discussion of anything but this article is obviously off topic here.  And you have no consensus to include the category you want here, so unless you have a source that actually labels this institution a "poverty-related" organization, I'd say we are done here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that we've gone as far as we can without inviting more editors into this discussion. Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Translations for non-Americans, please
Sorry to interrupt the discussions -- please could I clarify something? The article talks about the school being "for students who might otherwise not receive a college education". My understanding of American English is that "college" means "university", i.e. education at an age later than secondary-level high school.

The article then immediately goes on to say "Student earnings cover 60% of their tuition".

The Wikipedia article tuition redirects to Tuition payments, which proceeds to talk almost entirely about university-level tuition costs and payments. I have heard Americans saying "tuition" in the same way, i.e. meaning specifically payments for tertiary-level, university educations.

The context of the article, however -- and the discussion here -- seems to imply that the "tuition" costs being talked about are for secondary-level education at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School itself. Not for university tuition costs. Am I right in making this implication?

Thank you MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, my understanding is that the earnings are used to fund secondary level education for students that are mostly between 14 to 18 years old. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The vast majority of secondary education in the US is publicly funded and tuition free, but their is a significant number of parochial schools (like this) and non secular private schools that are tuition funded. John from Idegon (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I will make some clarifications -- minor additions -- to the article to make this clearer, although I might wait until the current content disagreements have cooled a little, as they concern the same areas of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A nuanced point: Some Catholics reserve the term "parochial" for schools run by individual parishes, as opposed to schools like this one that are run by a religious order for students throughout the diocese. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, Bill. And thanks for your patience, . John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I blame the Britishers for everyone's ENGVAR problems... they were the ones who introduced a system where the best private schools in England are described as "public schools", and public schools are described some other way, except for those that are not, and so on :) MPS1992 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Demographics
John from Indegon ''I had taken from a demographics website the significant data for this school. You reverted my edit and proposed that my concise mention of the only significant statistic here be disallowed. You say: "No, it is more meaningful to the POV you want to push. Stop screwing around with a standard presentation of statistics." Your "standard presentation of statistics" in a separate, major section by itself seems to me to go against the policy that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article ... inhibit the flow of the prose". Your insistence that there be uniformity among all school articles in this will make not better but rather less intelligible articles. I suggest that more focused and intelligible articles should be Wikipedia's POV. What I had in the article and propose to restore is:'' Of the 274 students enrolled in 2015–2016, students of Hispanic descent constituted 90.1% of the student body, which reflects the racial mix of minorities in Lawrence. Jzsj (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Remember, as used by the census bureau, the term "Hispanic" refers to ethnic background, not race BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of them are from Puerto Rico, if we want to include that. Jzsj (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * One of the stated purposes of Wikipedia is to provide almanac type information. Extracting a single piece of data is WP:UNDUE. Again, the obvious consensus that is shown by the way it is generally done on similar articles is a sufficient consensus to do it that way on this article and I see no compelling arguments to change it. We generally only mention differences between census data for the area and enrollment data for the school if they are different, not if they are the same. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A procedure note: If you wish to ping an editor, you do it by using the ping template, thus:  .  If you need to list references in a section on a talk page, you do so by using Template:Talk reflist, not the same template you use on an article.  Talk reflist only gathers references from the particular section it is applied to. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I think it might be worth compromising on this particular issue, even if not ideal by WP:V standards... a 90%+ ratio of students from a minority in the country in question, would be kinda weird and merits some sort of explanation. Let's source it as best we can. MPS1992 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the explanation? I don't see one. Do you mean the census data?  Also, I can't ever see a reason not to list all the NCES statistics.  Only listing some of them--that would look weird. If we list the entire NCES stats, the 90% figure is there. As to adding the census data, on a private school, that is problematic, as most private schools have no set attendance zone.  So how do we know that the census dataset is a data match to the NCES data? John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And BTW, your link to the census data isn't working. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If your proposal is to list all of the census data, I have no objection to that. Although I do object to listing any item where the total is "0%", as some articles do. MPS1992 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are listing any demographics info then cite and quote the entire NCES demographics data set, as we normally do. There';s no reason to cherry-pick just one particular piece of the data to list. Meters (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please give a reference for your claim that Wikipedia is intent on presenting information like an almanac would. And your reference to WP:UNDUE is of no help here since its speaking of including minority opinions, not of a school's preference for serving minorities. Your "obvious consensus" and "way things are generally done" are part of the issue here, whether the Schools Project should impose policies and guidelines beyond those approved throughout Wikipedia. Should a very small group of editors in the Schools Project be able to impose formatting and almanac-type presentation when this is not required by the overall policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Also you've not responded to my observation that "standard presentation of statistics" in a separate, major section by itself seems to me to go against the policy that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article ... inhibit the flow of the prose".

Also, I note that the article you created on Treasure Valley Christian School still contains the section: The student population at TVCS as of 2009-2010 was approximately 90% white, 7% Hispanic and 2% Asian. I'm asking no more than your tolerance of this succinct way of describing enrollment, without a bulleted list and leaving out the zeros. Jzsj (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that the percentages of the student population of Treasure Valley Christian School are backed up by a source. The source used in this article do not contain the percentages, making it fall foul of Wikipedia:Original Research. The Banner talk 12:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so. The source for the school's demographics are given as numbers which become percentages through simple arithmetic. Jzsj (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See also WP:CALC BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This matter will eventually blow up into a WP-wide controversy. While for many years the Census differentiated Negro or Black from white, all of the categories are now self-reported; Latino or Hispanic is whatever the reporter claims -- white for some Spaniards and descendants, brown for indigenous people from South and Central America. People of color is the most vague of terms.  As BillHPike points out, one should be cautious when using WP:CALC with population statistics. Rhadow (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

So am I correct to say that now the only difference we have is whether to present the NCES demographics as prose, rather than a bulleted list? If that's the case, I have no problem with it. Just please present it in the order the source does, and omit the 0 entries as we would usually with prose. Any objections? John from Idegon (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In prose, I think it is would read easier if we listed the groups in descending order, with multiracial students being reported in a independent clause at the end of the sentence. For example 9x% of the schools students are hispanic, x% asian, y % black, and z% white, with t% being of two or more races BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, Bill. I'd say go ahead and do it, as it's simply a change from one accepted style to another. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it more important that you change the demographics sentence (like the one I propose) in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, since according to Wikipedia policy these featured schools "are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Jzsj (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not in favor of a guideline or whatever, that eliminates zero from demographic descriptions. Such a suggestion has a way of becoming cast in concrete. I have been working on a set of schools that have zero white students. The zero is the point. Rhadow (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely, that the guidelines for schools should not go beyond general policy in Wikipedia, and that where there is a statistic like zero white students (which characterizes inner schools in some cities) that this be made clear, whether from a complete demographics list or from explicit mention in the running text. In the case here of Notre Dame CR there are no native Americans in the school since there are hardly any in the city. Cristo Rey schools almost invariably follow the poverty demographic of their area, but with a possible preference for Catholics, which would in such cases favor Latinos. From the FAQs on the network website: "Students do not have to be Catholic to enroll at a Cristo Rey school. Our schools admit students inclusive of all faiths and cultures. On average, 40% of Cristo Rey students are not Catholic;... (57% Hispanic, 34% Black, 6% Other, and 3% Caucasian)." Jzsj (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like at least two participants here are in agreement that not listing non-existent students would be wrong. I wish you all luck in your efforts. MPS1992 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was that where listing the zero serves a purpose it should be done, but not required in the case of Notre Dame for the reason I give just above. Jzsj (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)