Talk:Sedona Sky Academy

Content dispute
I have protected this article for one week to foster discussion of the issues that have resulted in edit-warring in the article. Before protecting it I trimmed it back to a short version. I removed content that appears to push a particular POV, although I acknowledge that some users may still object to some of the content that remains. If people want changes, please discuss them here.

In reviewing and revising this article, I have observed that:
 * The Sedona Sky website consistently describes it as a therapeutic boarding school, not a residential treatment center.
 * Although at least one user asserts that Sedona Sky Academy is a new school that is not the same institution as Copper Canyon Academy, the Sedona Sky website takes credit for a history going back to at least 2005:

Also, please be mindful of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOT remember that:
 * Not every conceivable fact about a topic deserves to be in an encyclopedia article about that topic.
 * User-created websites such as "survivor" sites are not suitable reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not found any reliable sources to support the negative claims. My search was cursory, so there could well be acceptable sources I didn't find. It's clear that there have been claims made by former students, but I agree that survivor websites, anonymous surveys, reality shows, etc. don't make the grade as WP:RS. If the controversy is real it is germane to the article, but there should be (and need to be for inclusion) verifiable, reliable sources. Note that I did find the dead link National Post article, at http://nypost.com/2013/01/10/abused-teens-take-aim-at-lifetime-reality-show/ . it is reporting what was said on a reality show rather than a news article. It's a reliable source as to what was said, but can we trust what was said on a reality show? Meters (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An article could verifiably report that something was said on a reality show, but the fact that a statement was made on a reality show isn't obviously encyclopedic. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Virtually identical edits with the same sources have just been made by another IP. I've undone them and left a message on the Ip's page to discuss here per WP:BRD. Meters (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy
Via Special:ShortPages I reverted the blanking of the redirect from to Sedona Sky Academy. User:Msampson10 has posted the following on my talk page, and I repost it here in order to get more eyes on the matter.

— Preceding text originally posted&#32;on User talk:Sam Sailor&#32;([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Sailor&diff=prev&oldid=649108207 diff])&#32;by Msampson10 (talk&sdot;contribs)&#32;16:57, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I'll notify editors who have previously edited the article. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the conflict of interest concern (I'll get to that in a bit), I do understand that sometimes schools change names.

In the case of Arizona Boys Ranch to Canyon State Academy, a name change that occurred in 2000 and arguably the best example at hand, I left it intact because while there were massive changes to the school itself there was considerable continuity between ABR and CSA. Until 2005 CSA used ABR's athletic mascot, and CSA inherited one of ABR's campuses (the other two or three were shuttered).

HEAL Online, which is an information source very critical of boarding school programs, says that much of the upper management jumped from Copper Canyon to Sedona Sky. Even their own web page contains Tweets phrased like "Sedona Sky Academy, formerly known as Copper Canyon Academy, is a premier residential treatment center for girls."

I encourage User:Msampson10 to add a section about the Sedona Sky transition to the article, but I also want to warn him/her to be careful because we do have conflict of interest policies, and I agree that something on CCA must remain. Raymie (t • c) 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect and Content issue
Looking into the matter it seems inappropriate that Copper Canyon Academy page is removed and is redirected to Sedona Sky Academy page, I suggest the redirect from Copper Canyon Academy page to Sedona Sky should be removed as it seems wrong. The website of now closed Copper Canyon Academy doesn't mention anything about it being renamed or any other thing, why on earth would someone remove the Copper Canyon Page and make it a redirect to Sedona Sky? Yes the owner of both the academies appears to be the same person, and yes some people might have switched to Sedona Sky after Copper Canyon was closed and Sedona Sky was created on the same location. But that doesn't justify removing the history and page of Copper Canyon and make a redirect to Sedona Sky page. I think it is not appropriate by us to merge or anyway try to link these two separate academies when official websites of both are not mentioning any link at all. JohnKeith (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a mess. The original article on Copper Canyon Academy was renamed to create the Sedona Sky Academy page by User:Orlady more than 6 months ago.
 * If we are treating this institution as one which has been renamed then that move was correct, the redirect from Copper Canyon Academy to Sedona Sky Academy is correct, and we need to discuss the history of the academy prior to the rename in the current article.
 * If we are treating these institutions as separate ones (which happen to have the same owners and location) then the original Copper Canyon Academy article from August 2014 (and history) should be restored. From this ref the original owners repurchased the Copper Canyon Academy program under its original name, closed it, and reopened under the new Sedona Sky Academy name.
 * Given the owner's comment ' "When we came back, we made a strategic decision to give it a fresh start," Behrmann says. "It's a 16-year-old brand-new business." ' a case can be made to treat it either way, but it seems to me that we cannot completely separate the two academies. If we go with two articles there should be wikilinking between them and some discussion. Meters (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
I would like to request the following change, for the text to be altered from "a private therapeutic boarding school for emotionally disturbed adolescent girls" to "a private therapeutic boarding school for adolescent girls", removing the term "emotionally disturbed" as this is a clinical condition that doesn't apply to Sedona's practice or license; this is a clinical term that doesn't apply to the treatment center. "Therapeutic boarding school for girls" already covers the scope of the company's license. Emotionally disturbed as a clinical term applies to psychiatric treatment centers or hospitals, of which Sedona is not qualified to be. The Wikipedia link to "therapeutic boarding schools" describes what the facility does in terms of context. If this is considered to be non-controversial, I may make this edit myself, but wanted to make sure that it is indeed non-controversial and ensure that the edit is not made with context. Though I am not being paid by Sedona, I do have an external affiliation with the boarding school, which I here declare. Ophelia Afeelinya (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As no one has responded to the contrary in the month since I made this request, I will make it myself assuming there is no disagreement. Ophelia Afeelinya (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)