Talk:The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia)

IP Editing
This article is the victim of an ensuing edit war. It was originally created by a WP:SPA. Now an IP WP:SPA is deleting large portions of the article with the note "Correcting history". In so doing, the article's references are being screwed up. That's vandalism.

This effort would be better spent on improving the tagged portions of the article.

The matter needs to be resolved on this talk page, or article need to have edit restrictions invoked. Rhadow (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:COPY-PASTE
Text being added by 2600:1005:B015:8225:D9A9:6F87:8427:A41F is a copy-paste violation from ]. Rhadow (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While anyone may edit and add content, there are various policies and guidelines that govern what should be included. It's not an advertising platform for the school. It is WP:NOTCENSORED. Material that is added must be verifiable by independent reliable sources. Please make an effort to learn these policies, and how to implement them before adding information without a reliable source, and before removing information already in the article supported by a reliable source. If you have any questions, you can visit the Teahouse, or ask on the article talk page (here), or on another editor's talk page. If you need practice, you can use the WP:Sandbox. I'm restoring the article to the way it was before the flurry of edits against policy. Please discuss here before adding or removing the same content. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible additional sources
2016 article from a Massachussetts paper mentions Heritage's heritage as a segregation academy. Maybe it could be helpful? Jacona (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a wonderful op-ed, but not a reliable source. I looked up this guy's LinkedIn and did the math. He was offered the job in about 1985. He had floated among some fancy (but not quite top-flight) prep schools previously. Funny story. At some of the very best schools at least, the scholarships for disadvantaged youth were underwritten by the Heritage Foundation. Wow!  Even at a place far north and full of polite breeding, I remember a music teacher who teased a classmate of mine, observing, "you have the rhythm."  Another classmate of mine was accepted at Princeton; he rejected the offer and went to Howard. Rhadow (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The whole story
Hello Docram, there is no reason that this article cannot be be returned to regular-length when the controversy is settled. A description of the campus is uncontroversial, as long as it doesn't include the donors' names. Academics can be restored, as long as any claims about tests and scores can be verified. Athletics and arts can can be restored with the same zealous tone all other school articles adopt; I don't care. When the time comes, an alumni section can be created, subject to the same rules as for other schools. And, yes, the history section could be supplemented with contemporaneous references about the school's mission. It's not up to WP to solicit anything from the school. If it wasn't important enough for the press or Congress at the time, it probably isn't useful now.

The article was trimmed by proponents of the school, probably to highlight the section most objectionable to the nominator. The result was a precis of what makes the school notable -- that it was a private institution started to continue the segregation that was law for many public schools until 1954. To argue for balance when the facts (as complete as we can find them) are in front of us is false equivalence, a logical fallacy. The school was what it was. I don't mind a description of what the school is, what it has become, but the history section stays, even if the other sections are not redeveloped. Rhadow (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I hope I've misunderstood you, but I would strongly oppose any discussion of the school's current "mission" unless it were subject of analysis from reliable secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you may have misunderstood. I referred to the history section. I believe that the reference I added, testimony before the Senate Select Committee, is a reliable secondary source and contemporaneous (1970). Rhadow (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct Information
Hi, I would like to correct information on this page as well as see why excellent information has been removed, including the alumni and athletics sections. I tried correcting the athletic conference the league plays in (GHSA region 4-A private) and this was deleted. The demographics are out of date, of which I was going to replace, and this was also deleted. Additionally, I tried addressing some of the accusations of a formation of the school as a “segregation academy”, as these are incorrect. I am a founding member of the school (and therefore a first person source), and can tell you that this was not the reason for the formation. Unfortunately, these accusations have always been made due to the unfortunate tie between the year the school was formed and what else was happening during that time in our history. I would of course understand the listing of those accusations on this page, but to mention them as fact based off an op-Ed by a rejected job applicant and hearsay mentioned in testimony would be inappropriate. There are many instances of false accusations being mentioned during congressional testimony. Therefore this page appears to have become nothing but an illicit attempt to disparage a school, based on slander and hearsay. Any help in correcting this would be much appreciated. Fogoros09 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

While you may consider it slander and hearsay, it is backed up by reliable sources, it was even discussed by Walter Mondale and is documented in the library of Congress. We don’t allow Original research, especially when all we have is some anonymous person on the internet with no published sources for verification. Jacona (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I placed multiple verifiable sources, regarding the schools history and current athletics. It appears you wish nothing but to slander the school. All that was mentioned by Walter Mondale is an accusation. This of course should be included on the page, but mentioned appropriately as controversy and not fact, as I labeled. You are also continually incorrectly re-posting false information regarding athletics, etc. that I have to continue correcting. Fogoros09 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User is repeatedly removing correct information regarding school, while additionally trying to place a controversial issue as the primary focus of page, as opposed to listing appropriately as controversy.. Fogoros09 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your most recent edits included a copyright violation, which I reported both in the edit caption and on your talk page. Please take some time to read the Wikipedia policy on copyrights. As for your edit about joining the GHSAA, that's good and should be added to the article. I'll do it myself when I have the time, unless someone else does so first. I'm in no hurry, and there is WP:NODEADLINE. In the meantime, please consider reading the links provided in the welcome information on your talk page. Jacona (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Corrected the copyright violation. Why do you insist on making the controversial topic the defining factor of the school? I don't want to erase it, just give it the context if deserves. Additionally, you keep posting incorrect athletic information. Fogoros09 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The school was founded solely because the public schools were being integrated. The entire purpose of it's existence at the outset was to violate the constitution of the United States America and court decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is documented by reliable sources. Why on earth would it NOT be mentioned at the start? And no, the copyright violations are not fixed, because as of this moment they are still in the revision history, an administrator will have to come behind and fix that. The athletics information had been fixed, and a WP:RS]] was provided, which you replaced with a WP:PRIMARY source. Please stop vandalizing this article.Jacona (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the school was founded to violate the constitution, but that was not in fact the case, and at a minimum can only be suggested and not stated with certainty. The source you are claiming "proves" this, is a mere testimony that the school was accused of this. An accusation is not a conclusion. Therefore this is an important piece of information to include, as it is relevant to history, but it should be discussed appropriately and not listed as fact, which there is not enough evidence for. Fogoros09 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
See WP:DRN — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources not forthcoming
The requests for sources that measure up to wiki standards have been active since last summer. In the absence of such sources, the unsupported claims should be deleted soon. It seems very apparent that the editors who posted the material are writing with a slant that violates wikipedia standards. Hilltoppers 10:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The fact that sources meeting Wikipedia standards have not been forthcoming, as requested last summer, warrants the Wiki protocol of eliminating the spurious and unsourced claims. Those claims have been corrected with highly reputable citations and sources that are in full compliance with Wikipedia standards. The school in consideration was historically very progressive, with an unambiguous inclusive admissions policy from its inception. It was rather unique in this respect and should not be erroneously lumped in with segregation academies as it was very deliberate in its disassociation with said "academies" according to dozens of sources. This is simply a matter of cited historical accuracy, which Wikipedia holds in high regard.
 * On the other hand, it seems perhaps that the information about the history of the school in 1970 regarding racial issues does not belong in the opening paragraph. However, if it is essential for it to be there, it should be accurate.
 * The sophistic claim "it has been described as a segregation academy," is a fallacy that could be applied to anything or anyone. If I say "Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia is a terrorist leader of Al-Qaeda," that is no warrant for an editor to go to the wiki page for Mr. Wales and post "Wales has been described as a terrorist leader of Al-Qaeda." Furthermore, the editor who posted that the Heritage School had been described as a segregation academy was not even able to provide a spurious attribution to that effect, much less a reliable one.
 * Given the proper wikipedia protocols, the many months waiting for legitimate sources that meet Wikipedia standards, and the glaring errors in this article, it has been revised and properly cited to reflect greater historical accuracy. Hilltoppers (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions. I've made some tweaks, but did not revert your changes. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bill. I think I will be able to find several reputable published sources that demonstrate that Commissioner Randolph W. Thrower was a civil rights leader, not inclined to be soft on racism. I'll fix that soon. I think the word "investigator" is embellished in context, but I won't wrangle over it. Anyone can be identified as an "investigator," but it connotes something official. In short, thank you for your edits. Hilltoppers (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Superfluous edit
Editor Jacona has interpolated the phrase "they initially did not enroll any black stucents." In addition to the fact that there is no such thing as a "black stucent," Jacona's edit conveniently ignores the published evidence that the school's leaders were "disappointed that no African-American students applied for the first year." (see Atlanta Journal, July 20, 1970). Hence, Jacona is not editing from a neutral perspective as required by Wikipedia standards. If it is important to include in the header that no blacks enrolled in the first year, the whole truth should be stated: no blacks applied in the first year. In the second year, the board took a significant measure to recruit blacks by offering a tuition waiver. Would it be proper to change Harvard's page to include in the opening tag that "initially it did not enroll blacks" and therefore is properly classified as a segregation academy by it's deeds? Hilltoppers (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You described a school that did not enroll any black students its first year as a civil rights trailblazer. Many, many segregation academies had "open admissions" policies that led to no admissions of non-white students in practice, in some cases until this very day. Should they all be described as Civil Rights Trailblazers because of their words, or described as segregation academies because of their deeds? Talk about WPNPOV violations! Jacona (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Heritage School, a consensus of sources are abundantly clear that the school founders were very consciously opposed to the "segregation academies" that were emerging all around. The historical record is clear that in the first year, the leadership was "disappointed" that no blacks applied. And in the second year they waived tuition to recruit blacks. It is very inappropriate for a legitimate historian or scholar, or for a Wikipedia editor, to engage in speculative and spurious "mind-reading" in opposition to the record. Wikipedia requires editors to be neutral and fact-based in their edits, and condemns those who say, like you have, "yes I know what the record says, but I don't care, I can read their minds and claim, without sources, they didn't really mean what they said." The argument, "it didn't happen, therefore they didn't want it to happen" is a serious logical fallacy and unacceptable for Wikipedia. Elsewise you could say, "Martin Luther King, Jr. did not choose to marry a white woman, therefore he must have hated white women." That's really bogus reasoning and it has no place on Wikipedia. In the first year the school did not enroll any Japanese, Peruvians, or students from Nebraska. Why shouldn't that fact be included in the opening paragraph? The answer is obvious: it's superfluous and anyone who would derive from that fact that the Heritage school was anti-Japan, anti-Peru, or anti-Nebraska would be committing a very serious logical fallacy. By your logic Harvard University should be dubbed a "segregation academy" on the grounds of their "deeds"-- that there were no blacks in their first student body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs)
 * It is very difficult to have a conversation when one party changes comments that were already replied to, which is discussed on the talk page guidelines. That's not a civil way to have a discussion, nor is mocking over a typo. I am far from perfect and make plenty of errors, including the occasional misspelling. I suspect you may have done so yourself at some point, but it is easier and more productive to correct the misspelled word than to make snide comments.Jacona (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Aspersions such as "ridiculous" do not qualify as "civil." Hilltoppers (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources discuss the school's early demographics in the context of the school's founding. The Wikipedia article should as well. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BillPike, I certainly have no qualms discussing the demographics of the school's founding. I agree it is proper. But it is disingenuous to post "no blacks were enrolled" implying that blacks were prohibited, when in fact they were not prohibited and the sources state that the leadership was disappointed that no blacks even applied. The whole story should be told, not just the POV slant that an editor wishes to manipulate by omission. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Hilltoppers (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not in keeping with any standards to call a school with a continuous record of underrepresentation of minorities as a civil rights trailblazer. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

=Never addressed=

I made an edit to the article based on a talk contribution over a year ago that has gone entirely unaddressed. Jacona reverted the edit based on the fact that it should be addressed on the Talk page. So here it is again, and unless addressed, it merits an edit.

In the first year of Heritage school, no blacks were enrolled, but no blacks had even applied. To leave that addendum off is to attempt to paint the false and dishonest picture that blacks were DENIED admission. Dishonestly will not be countenanced by Wikipedia.

The historical record is clear that in the first year, the leadership of the Heritage school was "disappointed" that no blacks applied. And in the second year they waived tuition to recruit blacks. The argument, "it didn't happen, therefore they didn't want it to happen" is a serious logical fallacy and unacceptable for Wikipedia. Elsewise you could say, "Martin Luther King, Jr. did not choose to marry a white woman, therefore he must have hated white women." That's really bogus reasoning and it has no place on Wikipedia. In the first year the school did not enroll any Japanese, Peruvians, or students from Nebraska. Why shouldn't that fact be included in the opening paragraph? The answer is obvious: it's superfluous and anyone who would derive from that fact that the Heritage school was anti-Japan, anti-Peru, or anti-Nebraska would be committing a very serious logical fallacy. By your logic Harvard University should be dubbed a "segregation academy" on the grounds of their "deeds"-- that there were no blacks in their first student body.Hilltoppers (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hilltoppers, I’m on the road, and will apply more fully later. The sources don’t mention Nebraskans, etc, because the hundreds of schools opened in 1970 weren’t opened to prevent Nebraskans from attending school with the White students. There were many schools that had no Black students apply, largely because it was made abundantly clear they could not attend. The source states that none were enrolled for a reason. Gotta run, check you later. — Jacona (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)