Talk:The First Academy

Reads like an advert?
A recent revert of an anonymous user blanking the History section brought to my attention that this section is written like an advert. "Boasts", "Christ-centered", "Has continued to grow" and more seem to cross the line of NPOV, and although blanking isn't the right approach, can someone knowledgeable rewrite this section so it doesn't just echo the motto on the right? --Thurinym (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a problem if it does echo the motto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.92.95 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When did signs of enthusiasm - ie: boasts - and depictions of faith at a private religious instituion - ie: Christ-centered - become violations of NPOV? Moving on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.35.87 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Athletics
I changed all the "we"'s and "our"'s to "they" and "their", but, the athletics' section needs SERIOUS work. 24.24.143.176 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Due Diligence to attempt to resolving advert speech and add actual school content
I apologize in advance, I am not a frequent Wiki editor but I am trying to do this right. I do not know how to properly edit everything. I thought citations would be good and my disclosure that I work for the school - anyhow here goes:

I've tried to remove the 'read like an advert' but my edits have been removed multiple times. Christ-centered is not advertising, it's a motto of the school, and its what the school is about. Educating students with a christ-centered philosophy. Its in the motto, the vision, everything. Furthermore, the page was defaced in 2016, with users removing the actual school content - our summary, our athletic programs, arts programs and academic programs - things parents are interested in addition to being Christian.

I would ask that you read my latest edit on August 2018 and reimplement the aforementioned portions. I also think its undue process to retain the 'Controversy' section. A former student while off campus, during summer when students aren't enrolled, violated school policy and posted an inappropriate statement on their private instagram page. They were disciplined private and months later publicly shamed. A self-interest promoting user name Shaun King touted this story for financial gain and has been quoted with inaccurate and slanderous heresay about the school. If Wikipedia were to put every instance of controversy from every school onto the website, school pages would reflect nothing but a discipline log.

I work for the school, various people over time have wondered why our Wiki page is so barren, and so I'd like to ask that you consider reimplementing some or all of my last post. I even kept the controversy section, and added action steps from it at the end.

I am not paid to write this specifically, but I do work for the school and would like to see a page up that accurately reflects and portrays our school, rather than a derogatory hit-piece from a moment in time of one former students point of view. -Timnethers (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , we are not here to provide a school brochure with things parents are interested to know, but an encyclopedia article. The previous edit, which I have looked at, was indeed a promotional brochure and is inappropriate. "Christ-centered" is unacceptable marketese, we've already said it's a Christian school, and that's a simple statement of fact. We don't really care what the school's motto is, nor do we uncritically regurgitate "mission" statements or anything like that. I do agree the "controversy" section might be a bit much, and we can take a look at that, but Wikipedia is not here to provide a "Why to send your kids here" brochure. That's what your organization's website is there for. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tim, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a school web page. All the information must be backed up with an independent, reliable source. No one wants a "hit page", but we do need facts, with references. The arts section could certainly fit, perhaps you could provide some links to sources that could be used to reference the information? The negative information is probably too much, as Seraphimblade suggests, but unlike the arts section, it has reliable sources to back it up. It no doubt will be revised in the near future, but it will not be censored, nor removed simply because someone doesn't like it. Jacona (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the motto statement, I was under the impression that Wikipedia: WikiProject Schools is the standard we should follow? The quote above reading, "We don't really care what the school's motto is," implies wikipedia don't care about the motto, but many of the articles listed in the top school's "featured schools" articles categories include their motto, as part of the template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amador_Valley_High_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_for_Creative_and_Performing_Arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_for_Creative_and_Performing_Arts All of these of the very few featured articles include their motto. Also a majority of these articles include Sports, Buildings, Academics and Arts sections, which we added after modeling from the aforementioned FAs. Additionally, you don't want our mission statement. But the Baltimore City College Page has an entire section dedicate to its Mission statement. I'm trying to add to the page, but it seems like this is a big tear-down.

Because I work at the school, am I not allowed to write on the page facts and statements about the school to help improve the school article? I am genuinely not trying to market the school, but instead write some steps towards an FA/A/GA class school article, with actual content and sections that others can add to as needed. It says working for the organization 'may be' a conflict of interest but does not state IS. I would love for others to contribute rather than tear down the page.

I am new to this, so why is it that we have to use talk instead of post directly on the page when it is so lacking? --Timnethers (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)-Timnethers (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2018 (EST)


 * It depends. If you're being asked or expected as a duty of your employment to edit the page, you are a paid editor. Paid editors must abide by the COI guidelines, including not directly editing a page except to revert obvious and blatant vandalism. (This means something that no one would disagree was vandalism, such as someone just adding random profanity.) And while we might eventually somewhere include stuff like a motto or mission statement, it would be as a direct quote and clearly marked as such, never as a statement of fact about the organization, and that probably only if it were a particularly notable feature of the organization. But if you didn't see how your prior edits were promotional, you certainly shouldn't be directly editing it. It's extremely difficult to remain neutral about subjects you have a direct interest in, which is why we very strongly discourage COI editing even when it's not directly for pay. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)