Talk:Montgomery Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Schools Portal

???

This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.

This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

1 Seg academy bias?
- 1.1 Opinion.
- 1.2 References.
2 Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today
3 Mediation or Arbitration
- 3.1 User:68.55.206.184
- 3.2 Alabamaboy
4 Anything happening here?
5 Anonymous editor's response
6 Dystopos' response
7 For now
8 On the right track
9 To be honest, I feel this is a game of chase with words
10 A fresh look
11 Eight edits, few changes
12 I'm fine with this
13 On Wikipedia's shortcomings

[edit] Seg academy bias?

This article is CLEARLY BIASED. It draws from an opinion piece written by a local guy who has a problem with the school. http://www.greggriffin.com/Editorials/Desegregation.htm

The Montgomery Academy was NOT founded as a segregationist school. The founders would be appalled to hear such an accusation.

Please refer to the article's history tab. The Montgomery Academy article is maintained fervently and adamantly by Alabamaboy, whose profile page shows him to be a racial activist. No one should begrudge him his views. However, his interests clearly make his dominance of the article a conflict of interest.

At current, the article is libel. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.103.111 (talk • contribs)

I find little or no bias in the article as it stands. The facts presented are easily verified and the conclusions drawn from them are cited to their original authors. The article clearly cites Griffin as a source. If you have evidence that contradicts the statements in the article, or sources that reach other conclusions, it would be helpful to provide them. There is no basis for a libel case in my view. If you are truly concerned, Wikipedia:Libel advises contacting the info team at info-en@wikimedia.org --Dystopos 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: info-en ticket 2006050110014409, User talk:66.44.103.111, 2 User talk:Alabamaboy edits, and 2 User talk:Jeandré edits. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-02t21:30z

I recommend discussion about the article content be placed here and discussion about the actions of contributors be placed on their respective talk pages. I guess we're still looking for sources to contradict what is contained in the article? --Dystopos 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted a response on my talk page about the vandalism issue. In short, apologies for my own mistakes. That said, though, I think the article is balanced and NPOV. The establishment of seg academies was a well-known response to the Brown v Brown decision. As the Guardian article that is referenced here states, "After the US supreme court ordered the end of segregation 50 years ago, many white southerners simply moved their children from state schools to private academies, often referred to as "seg academies" because they effectively kept segregation intact."[1] The other references provide additional info on the Montgomery Academy, with the Montgomery Advertiser article stating that several private schools began in the area shortly after BvB and the Griffin article specifically naming the Montgomery Academy.

While the Academy may have not been founded for the best of reasons, as the article states the school has overcome this origin. Referenced info is also given for this. While I understand why there may be a desire not to cover the complete history of the school, I think the article presents the pros and cons of everything and is, in short, encyclopedic. Thanks also for updating the reference system. I'd been meaning to do this. Best to all. --Alabamaboy 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that Wikipedia does have an article on Segregation academies, but it is thus far limited to Virginia. One of the Birmingham News special reports on the Black Belt gave a pretty good survey of the phenomenon in Alabama. I mentioned it on the talk page there and hope that the article will expand so that it can provide adequate context for the history alluded to here. To wit, it is not necessary to label Mr Weil a racist to accept the fact that the Academy was exclusively white for decades and that, whether by intention or merely by effect, it did help preserve a segregated educational system in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education. --Dystopos 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see there's now an article on seg academies. I'd always thought about starting that article but didn't have enough referenced info to do so. I'm also amused to see myself called a "racial activist." Some of the people who've e-mailed me lately about some edits I made to 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests said I must be a right-wing nutcase. Anyway, for the record I care deeply about this article because I went to the Montgomery Academy. However, while I love the school I can't ignore its actual history as a product of desegregation fears. However, nowhere in the article does it say the school is racist or still a seg school--in fact, the article specifically states the opposite. I hope the anonymous editor will help expand the article with more info for the history, academics, and other sections. This article could be greatly expanded and I'd love it if the anonymous editor would help do so. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I should add that nowhere in the article did it state that Mr. Weil was racist. There were many reasons why people were worried about desegregation and not all of them had to do with race.--Alabamaboy 23:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[Wow, where to start?]

Alabama,

If there is no article on seg schools, I encourage you to create one. It is a topic that bares the public's attention.

The reason I would call you a racial activist is the following sentences on your profile: "I am an administrator whose interests range from literature to African American issues." and "I am especially interested in people reporting problems with systemic bias and racism here at Wikipedia." ; the fact you have a "barnstar" award for tireless Afro-American contribution; the image of the continental United States with stripes in green, black, and red; and the fact you have moderated, edited, or created articles having to do with the KKK, the "Address to the Negroes of the State of New York", Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Anti-Tom literature. But I don't know you... so what do I know. Actually, I do probably know you. Who was your algebra teacher?

-that last post was not appreciated.

All,

Griffin's articles are opinion. He often reminds us what he writes are nothing more than his thoughts.

Here is what Griffin says in his article: "In my opinion it was founded to provide affluent whites the opportunity to avoid sending their kids to an integrated Montgomery Public School."

Here is what the wikipedia article says: "Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools, the academy has since expanded in both diversity and academics to become one of the top elementary and high schools in Alabama."

Griffin has also written, "I am convinced that Satan has children walking around on earth." http://www.greggriffin.com/Editorials/Wicked%20People.htm (2nd line)

Does that mean that Satan has people walking around on earth?

In short, Griffin's opinion articles on his vanity site/blog are not a credible source and no basis to make statements of the nature seen in the Academy article.

The recent addition of the Montgomery Advertiser piece is a good add, in my opinion. But it still does not provide a clear statement that the Montgomery Academy was established as a seg school. It simply states, as had been said before, it's founding came shortly after the B. v. Board of Ed. ruling. Chronological sequence does not MEAN the earlier is a cause of the latter. I hope I don't have to explain the logic. But here is an example: "This afternoon it started raining. 2 Hours later I went home." Did I go home because it was raining, or did my shift just end at work?

The article on seg academies exists (although it needs a lot of work IMHO, I'm not sure who wrote it but they focused on VA only) and is at Segregation academies. I've also just finished making rewrites to the article to address your concerns while not removing the facts about the founding. While I undertand that you don't like Griffin, he is a valid source who is published in a number of newspapers, with the editorial I referenced being originally published in the Montgomery-Tuskegee Times. Anyway, I hope you will add more info to this article. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start with a paragraph break.

I still don't like "Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools," The founders were concerned about the adverse effect of desegregation in the sense that it would tear the system apart affect the "quality" as addressed in the article. However, the founders "had it in" for the Montgomery public school system before Brown. These are dynamic people who weren't going to settle for even the all white, pre Brown v. Board, public schools for their children.

Do you have a reference for that in a publically accessible document? If so, we can find a way to present both views.--Alabamaboy 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no way to access the founders feelings at the time of founding on paper. You'll have to take my word for it. It's very easy to get the public's perception of the school. We've seen that in Griffin's article, the article from the Advertiser, and well... probably your opinion.

[edit] Opinion.

No offense to any of the writers or readership of the Montgomery-Tuskegee Times, but I don't recognize the publication as a first tier news source. And again, Griffin says "IN MY OPINION." That should be enough alone.

If you'll believe me, here's how the founding went: Weil, his wife, and two other familes get together because JD, Lanier, and Robert E Lee weren't cutting it. Weil felt a good education was extremely important. He went to boarding school. He wanted a higher caliber school in town. Naturally you can't have a private school without funding. And tuition was charged. Unfortunately there were no prominent black families in town who could afford the tuition. So, the school was all white. Had it not been all white at the time, you can probably imagine racists would have burned it down.

So decades passed and times changed and there have been black families to put their kids through the school; which is really wonderful. And the school has programs that seek out minority students in the city and offer them scholarships because diversity in a child's life is important for their socialization and development into normal and tolerant adults. Also, these kids really deserve the chance at real success which- according to what we know Weil believes- is only possible through good education.

Here is a question for discussion which may change your attitude toward the Academy. Griffin believes the flight of white students to private schools was detrimental to the public schools after integration. I would contend the loss of those students had little effect if not a positive one. Every family with a child in private schools still pays the taxes which support the school system. But they do not burden the system with the expenses of educating their children.

The other issue is that of the scholarship programs at the Academy. I've witnessed the Academy change the lives of kids in magnet schools who might have had good jobs after leaving their schools and graduating from Alabama or Auburn but now are doing greater things with their lives. In terms of race and class in Montgomery, where does that place the Academy?

That's all nice. However, it doesn't change the history that must be stated in this article. I have just added a new reference to the article, "Private schools diversify" by Regan Loyola Connolly, The Montgomery Advertiser, January 12, 2004. The article quotes Archie Douglas, the headmaster of The Montgomery Academy, as stating that the school was started in 1959 in what he believed was a reaction to desegregation of the public schools. He then said, "I am sure that those who resented the civil rights movement or sought to get away from it took refuge in the academy. But, it's not 1959 anymore and The Montgomery Academy has a philosophy today that reflects the openness . . . and utter lack of discrimination with regard to race or religion that was evident in prior decades."

I would state that the headmaster of the school, as quoted in the Montgomery Advertiser, is solid proof. Feel free to add more info to the article but I think the history is correct as is. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, as I said I love the Academy. I don't need to change my attitude towards it. My reason for including this info is to create an accurate encyclopedia article, which must include the history behind the school's founding. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The latest link isn't clickable. Douglas knows less about he school's founding than Johnson or Byrd. What he has to say is speculation and he is lucky it isn't getting him fired.

I really wanted that paragraph break. What was wrong with it?

Can you see where I am coming from on the opinions? When a founder comes out and says, "I started the Academy as a seg school," or the minutes are published saying something incriminating, it's ok to write the things in the article like "MA was founded in response to B V BE." As it stands, the article should say something like, "Many believe" or "it is the opinion of a great deal of people." Because what we have to go on are the opinions of those interviewed or the opinions of the authors of the articles.

I'm telling you it is a case of concern for quality of education and very bad timing regarding the founders' children's ages. You don't have to believe me. I'm just a guy at the other end of a bunch of cables. But I do know what I am talking about.

[Wow, where to jump in]

The fact that Griffin holds an opinion does not mean that his opinion is unwarranted. It would be good to have some documentation of the circumstances of the founding of the Academy that do not rely as heavily on regional trends, but even without first-person documentation reasonable historians could reasonably lump Montgomery Academy in with the large number of private academies established in the late 50s which served white students exclusively. As Wikipedians we should try to find the best sources available and clearly indicate what is documented and what is reasonably assumed. What we can't do is introduce one person's reading of the public's perception as evidence that Montgomery Academy in some way happened to look like a reaction to integration, smell like a reaction to integration, sound like a reaction to integration and behave like a reaction to integration without actually being a reaction to integration. That assertion is the one that, in my opinion, needs to bear the burden of proof. --Dystopos 05:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I never inferred the opinion was unwarranted. I do argue it is poorly founded and that to present it as fact is misinformation.

As for the look, smell, sound, and act... Well, I'm still tangled in the double negative. I assume what you meant to say is that if it looks, smells, sounds, and acts like X it is X. That is an old addage. Though it isn't my favorite, it is a good one. However please see the following wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_kingsnake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofurkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodariid_ground_spider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon (line 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroy_butterfly

[edit] References.

oooo they need to be cleaned up. that last one is on there like 5 times.

That last edit was really bad. Again, what is the beef? You would have to not like the academy to write it was founded in RESPONSE to desegregation.

That last reference is deliberately used multiple times, which is standard research policy when one reference covers multiple points. And Douglas is the current headmaster of the school so his opinion, in a large respected newspaper, carries a lot of weight. If you have an issue with what he said, take it up with him.--Alabamaboy 10:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Combined and rewritten using templates. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-03t19:52z

[Oh, by the way...] Yesterday I had no idea we were reverting each other. I thought my computer was acting up when the article went back to what it was before after like 10 minutes. That's a lot of time in front of the monitor.

That being said I want to make changes. See what you think. And remember my contention about OPINION.

Please see my previous comments and those of Dystopos. I have provided a ton of references to back up what I have written, culminating with a statement from the current school headmaster on the issue. If you have any publically available references, please provide them. And there is no link for the Mont. Advertiser article b/c it is in their paid archive. However, that is still considered a publically accessible reference and is actually a dang good one. Best, --Alabamaboy 10:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alabama,

I've thought about it. And I still feel the way I did 2 days ago about the article. I think what we've had is a case where you've been fencing with me and I've been fencing with you on an issue. And as it stands I don't think we are going to come to an understanding. You seem to want the Academy documented as a school founded to continue segregation. You have a lot of opinion pieces and interviews with those who do not know the circumstances of the founding. Admitedly, the statements the headmaster made weaken the argument that it is not a school founded to avoid integration. But I haven't seen that article. I can't click it and Google hasn't turned up with anything when I searched for it.

If he did, in fact, say what you report he said then my only response is that he does not know the circumstances of the founding. I have very little biographical information available to me on the guy. I know he went to Yale and Harvard. He looks like he might be 50, on a bad day. So where does that put him in terms of age at the time of founding?

I did find an article where he is quoted on a historical racial issue: http://www.visitingmontgomery.com/press_view.cfm?press_id=B25BBCCA-E22B-4CC5-81E44ABE38AEC535

I think his comments are very honorable. But they do show a bias which may have surfaced in the aforementioned Advertiser interview.

MA has been hiring wonderfully educated people for a very long time. Within the last decade and a half, they began pulling from the Ivy League heavily. It is a great step for the school. The negative effect, which we see here, is a lot of them had not been south of Washington, DC in their lives unless it was vacationing in south Florida. Before they got to the Academy, they thought the worst of Alabama. And when they started teaching, they continued with the same attitudes. Why else would Douglas have an opinion on the school's founding? He was probably in kindergarten or not even born when it was founded.

When did you graduate? You might know one of those teachers.

Jumping back to the first part about us not seeing eye to eye... What do you think about taking all the information about seg schools and making an entry about seg schools? Wikipedia needs that entry. We can expand the info on MA. That's easy. It needs to be updated anyway. 73 kids in the class of 2000 is pretty irrelavent. That's 5 years ago. Since then, they have built a new Upper School building. There should be something like "It is often criticized as a seg school." Then have seg school clickable.

Right now, the article is more about seg schools than the Academy. This is a very long entry. More thoughts to come...

[Oh, and most importantly...]

Not everyone who reads wikipedia is as active a wikipedian as you all. The vast majority just visit wikipedia for information. So, when they come to this site, they don't think to click on the discussions; they don't know what is happening behind the scenes. I know I didn't 3 days ago. And when they click on an article like this they take it at face value.

But what do we have in this article? Statements which begin with "In my opinion," restated with "In my opinion," lopped off. Such is the case with the Griffin comment.

I would argue the Gary Younge article is both irrelavent to the Academy in terms of the fact the Academy is not directly mentioned in the article and that The Guardian is a senstionalist semi-tabloid style UK based newspaper covering an issue in Alabama from New York with no knowledge of the Alabama constitution. (The constitution, in my opinion is "bass ackwards." For years, if a state representative wanted a law to stick, he'd just put it in the constitution rather than make it an act.) In addition, ask a British moderate what kind of publication The Guardian is and the first words out of his mouth, without political prompting will be "very leftist and a joke to the moderate majority." The next thing he will note is the poor editing evident in the frequent misspellings.

In the article, "Private Schools offer Parents Niche" the statement used for our wikipedia article is made by Annette Allen. She is a dean now at ASU, an HBC. And, at the time of the statement, she was a professor of sociology. Forgive my saying this, but a professor of sociology at an HBC is like the finger pointing equivalent of Bill O'Reilly from Fox News. Her position implies a huge bias. And the quote in question is really just putting words in her mouth anyway. "Allen is not sure when all the private schools were founded, but she noted several began shortly after the Brown v. Board of Education decision that deemed segregation in the public schools unconstitutional." You have to read between the lines to get anything out of that statement. And at best, all you get is that she is suspicious of the schools.

I feel all this is a real issue and a serious problem. We have politcally and racially biased opinion being passed as fact on a site people use for research.

As I said before, please provide a reference for your views before placing them in the article. YOu have questioned every reference I have provides, saying they are biased or (in the case of the headmaster's comments) they should lose their job for what they said. Despite this, you are unable to provide any references for your views. As for the other information on desegregation and southern schools, that provides the historic backdrop for the history section of this article. When I get some time I will add the info to the segegration academies article someone else created but it is also relevant here. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== BIASED OPINION IS BEING PRESENTED AS FACT ==

I differ with your appraisal. The article as it stands (and without relying solely on Griffin) places Montgomery Academy in the context of a large number of schools that were quite obviously and openly founded in response to white parents' concerns about integration. Given the context (Montgomery, Alabama 1959) and the outcome (a large number of students who once attended all-white public schools are enrolled in a newly-organized all-white private school), it is certainly reasonable to assume that the Montgomery Academy was a classic example of a segregation academy and that race was a primary consideration in the founding and success of the school. You have analyzed the bias in every commentator offered here, but have not analyzed your own bias. Do you have any indication that this academy was founded for reasons other than avoiding the integration of public schools? Without a court mandate to force integration, would there have been any threat to the perception of quality in the public schools which would not just be handled by putting pressure on the board?

Let's say you come upon a red, yellow and black-banded snake. You know that red and yellow adjacent indicate that the snake is venemous, but maybe this is a young snake and they change color as they get older. You look around and see that you are in a nest with hundreds of coral snakes. The conditions are perfect for them, coral snakes have flourished here for many generations. In fact, you are in a coral snake breeding area set up by the Federal government. And look, your snake is wearing a tag that says "Coral Snake - Venomous - opinion of Greg Griffin". The snake strikes at a nearby raccoon. The raccoon keels over. You start to take a step back, but then you remember a story your grandpa told you about the snake the built the first nest here. No one ever really said if he was a coral snake or not, but he apparently never actually killed anyone. Then you think about this Griffin guy... where did he study herpetology? Why did he say it's just an opinion? And then you consider the raccoon. Maybe the raccoon was already in poor health. Can we be sure that it was snake venom that killed it? You've heard that when snakes get older sometimes they'll let a raccoon walk right past them without striking. So there's the evidence. Are you seriously going to pick this snake up? --Dystopos 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re [2]. If concensus can't be reached, please consider contacting the Mediation Cabal. Please also sign all talk page posts with 4 tildes: ~~~~. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-03t19:52z

Actually, I disagree that consensus is not being reached. The consensus of at least two established editors here is that this anonymous editor needs to provide a reference, any reference, for her view of the school's history. I have provided additional references, including a respected newspaper article quoting the school's headmaster as saying the school was formed b/c of desegregation. Other editors have commented that this article appears to be ballanced. I disagree that mediation is needed when this editor is not meeting one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia (ie, provide references).--Alabamaboy 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to repeat my offer to this editor to help expand the neglected sections of this article, namely the academic and athletic sections (and any others that are needed). Its always been my goal to expand these sections but I haven't found the time yet to do so.--Alabamaboy 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Dystopos-For the record, after the mediator has introduced himself

I am sorry. You lost me with your story about the snake and the raccoon. Maybe I'm just bad with metaphors and symbolism. But your entry is way out there. I'm tempted to make a really facetious comment considering your metaphor for the "white school" is a pit of snakes and the black person is the raccoon.

Let's please keep this conversation intelligent and serious.

I see your point very well in the first part of your entry. My contention is that the public schools were unsatisfactory even before the B v BE ruling. Before the court mandate there was plenty of indication the Montgomery Academy was founded for reasons other than to avoid integration. For goodness' sake, why did the named founder leave Lanier, the local public school, for Culver, a military school 700 miles away. 1959 is 14 years after the end of WWII in the middle of the baby boom. The founders had children in grade school and they didn't want them going to public school, period- white, black, or integrated. 1959 is also 4 years before integration occured in Alabama. The founders pulled their children from an all white school that continued to be all white.

I think it is safe to say I don't have bias in my knowledge of the school's founding. I know the founders personally and they have no motivation to lie to me.

Also, I wouldn't say the schools success was not due in part to flight from integration. What I argue is that the schools founding had very little to do with it, if anything. 68.55.206.184 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting into the heads of the founders is not the way out of the facts. The fact is that segregation academies proliferated around the South once the threat of forced integration became real. Good people could truly believe that they were starting a new school to improve the quality of education available to their children, but if the result is an all-white school that effectively preserves a seperate system for white and black children, those good people have created a segregation academy. The coral snake metaphor was entirely serious and was inspired by your bringing up the Scarlet king snake as an example of something that looks like a venemous snake but isn't. The metaphor extends your line of thinking to incorporate the other lines of evidence you have chosen to ignore. Perhaps a simpler analogy would help: If, as a chef, my honorable intention is to create a really great omelot, and I make it with ham, bell peppers and onions, then regardless of my intentions, I have, in effect, created a western omelet. Even if I would take offense at the association of my really great omelet with the reviled Western region, the fact remains it's a western omelet. --Dystopos 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can wrap my brain around the omelette analogy. But a school is no more like an egg dish than it is a pit of snakes. If we are going to consider a school metaphorically as an omelette, I would contend the founders put the eggs in the pan. That is the school as it is founded- a building with teachers in it. And the students who enrolled (and by virtue of the relationship, the parents also) consituted the ham, chopped bell peppers, and onions. 66.44.105.71 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today

Just found the following there, which is not the place for posting dispute resolution material. Could this be redirected appropriately? Thanks. Tearlach 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Montgomery Academy article

Mediation Case: Today

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: 68.55.206.184 22:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?: The article titled Montgomery Academy

Who's involved?: Ananymous editor, Alabamaboy, Dystopos, Jeandré

What's going on?: There is a significant argument as to the nature of the founding of the school. The anonymous editor contends information cited is opinion and so should be presented on Wikipedia as such. Alabamaboy contends the information is not opinion and should be presented as fact.

What would you like to change about that?

I am the anonymous editor. I would like to take all mention of the Montgomery Academy being a segregationalist school out of the article. However, I recognize that some people feel that it was founded as such. There are several newspaper articles referenced on the Montgomery Academy article. Most of them are biased and opinion. One is, for example from an unabashedly leftist publication. In another case, the author has several articles posted online; in one of which he goes on to outline the difference between "good white folks and bad white folks." This author's writing also forms the "meat" of the segregationist accusation. While the author (Griffin) states it is his OPINION the academy has its roots in segregation, the wikipedia article paraphrases him without stating such a contention is opinion. I've left a significant portion of the work about Montgomery's segregationalist past and that the school has been thought of in such a light. I don't think what I ask here is too much. What I would like to see is an article that presents only information about the Montgomery Academy and that links to another article which details what a seg school was. I have been told the burden of proof lies on me to provide articles which rebutt the contention that the Montgomery Academy weas founded as a segregationist school. What I want the mediator to know is that no one would take the time to write a newspaper article about that. And if they did, it would be attacked by activists as being racist. There is no moral high ground to be had in submitting that an elite school is not segregationist, etc. Meanwhile, a great deal of people who are not in the know continue to speculate on the schools foundings and their opinion makes it to the media. The result is a very biased article on a school. And it is very unfortunate. This affects me personally, because I know the founders. I know they did not found the school as a "seg academy." Yet the school and its founders are being attacked with this libel.

I guess this is where I should respond this this. As I have stated, the history section of the article states that the school was founded in response to desegregation. To support this statement, there are two main references. One is the Griffin article the editor above mentions, which was published as an opinion piece in a small Alabama newspaper. I agree that it is not the strongest of references but it is valid. The other reference is a news article from the Montgomery Advertiser in which Archie Douglas, the current headmaster of the Montgomery Academy, is quoted as stating that the school was started in 1959 in what he believed was a reaction to desegregation of the public schools. This article was accessed through the paid archives of the Montgomery Advertiser [3] and was published on January 12, 2004.

Here is the complete section of the Montgomery Advertiser article dealing with all of this:

"Many of Montgomery's private schools that were started in the late 1950s were founded in response to national desegregation of public schools, brought on by the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, Sunal said. (Alabamaboy's note: Cynthia Sunal is a professor of elementary education at the University of Alabama who was referenced earlier in the article)

"Private schooling has a lot of history here and I think Southern history shows that one of the ways people tried to deal with huge changes in the public schools was to start a private school," Sunal said. "But not every private school was a reaction to desegregation."

Archie Douglas, the headmaster of The Montgomery Academy, said the school was started in 1959 in what he believed was a reaction to desegregation of the public schools.

"I am sure that those who resented the civil rights movement or sought to get away from it took refuge in the academy," he said. "But, it's not 1959 anymore and The Montgomery Academy has a philosophy today that reflects the openness . . . and utter lack of discrimination with regard to race or religion that was evident in prior decades."

For copyright reasons, I can't reprint the article in its entirety. But anyone wishing to purchase the article online can read it. As for the article's info on seg academies and desegregation, this info is here to provide historical background and perspective to the history section. By way of analogy, if the school had been founded before the Civil War and the history section said the school closed during the Civil War (as many schools did at that time), background info would have to be given to explain why this was done. In this case, the background information explains why the school was created.

As I have said throughout this debate, I am totally willing to change the article to represent the anonymous editor's views if she can provide a reference or source for her views. As she says in her statement, she knows the founders of the school and knows what their intentions were. While she seems like a nice person, Wikipedia's policy is to not allow original research. I should also note that I have made changes to the article based on her concerns and have also added additional references. None of this means, though, that basic referenced facts should be changed. Thanks for allowing me to comment.--Alabamaboy 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: Any way you wish. Through the discussion page on Montgomery Academy or emailing me at bbq@elvis.com

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

Thank you for the offer. I am not a regular "wikipedian."

Looks like I misspelled anonymous and posted my private email for the whole world. Great.

I can remove your e-mail address from this page and the archives if you like, so that the general public could not see it. Just let me know if you wish me to do this.--Alabamaboy 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that I have just modified the language of the article to try and address your concerns. While I do not believe that your views are historically accurate or that you have presented any evidence to back up your claims, I did this out of politeness and in hopes that it would satisfy you. I should also add that I'd really like to work this out but I since I wasn't around at the school's founding I have to rely on what I read to know the school's history. If you can provide any references at all to what you are saying, I'm sure we could fix the article to the satisfaction of both of us. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside Opinion

As an experienced editor, I can understand the concerns of both, the anonymous user and Alabamaboy. However, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. That an article or articles were published that claim that Montgomery Academy was founded as a result of desegregation efforts is verifiable and relevant. Stating it as fact would violate NPOV. In other words, the statements expressed by Archie Douglas, the headmaster of The Montgomery Academy and Mr. Griffin are verifiable and revelant to the article. However, it should be made clear that they themselves expressed their statements as "opinion" and "I believe". The anonymous user claims that their version or statements are not true, but unless there is a reliable verifiable source which claims otherwise the article should remain as cited. Tony the Marine 04:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that discuss the formation of "segregation academies" after Brown v BOE. That Montgomery Academy was formed around this same time means it's proper to discuss the opinions about segregation academies. If Alabamaboy has a source of someone with some expertise in this area saying Montgomery Academy was one of these segregation academies, I don't see what the problem is in adding it. It might even be proper to add some information about the proliferation of segregation academies in general, or perhaps create Segregation academies that can be linked to from here. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well how about that, it's already there. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation or Arbitration

Let this post be my request for some form of mediation or arbitration. I do not approve of the last revert. My reasons are explained throughout this discussion.

68.55.206.184 22:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a friendly mediator from the mediation cabal, it seems you are looking for some mediation? User:Alabamaboy contacted me on my talk page and if you agree we can continue with mediation :) - FrancisTyers 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the mediation as long as it can involve any interested editor. Unless there is an objection, let's do it on this article's talk page.--Alabamaboy 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just submitted for mediation. This is fine, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.206.184 (talk • contribs)

Fine with me. --Dystopos 00:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, lets get started, first thing, can I ask you both to outline your positions with respect to the dispute below and say what you are looking to accomplish with mediation. Anonymous user, can I ask you to get an account, it isn't mandatory but it would make things easier... - FrancisTyers 11:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alabamaboy — I've moved that section up there, I'll take a look at it later, but if you could summarise below I'd be much obliged :) - FrancisTyers 11:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask all parties to please keep their contributions, at least for the moment, in their own sections. It makes it easier for me to process. Thanks! - FrancisTyers 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes on abreviations used below: HBC means "historically black college; ASU means Alabama State University.--Alabamaboy 20:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.55.206.184

Maybe this will be useful. I don't think I could tell you, and I doubt the founders believed, there was ever a time in the history of Montgomery public schools in which a student's success in the world later on was not contingent on the parents' heavy envolvement at home. More simply put, the Montgomery Public Schools System has failed to educate in every era of its existence short of the rare cases where parents interceded. Harsh words, but true. One of the founder's wives had a story about starting in high school, after having been to a small girls' school, and literally teaching the French teacher the language... French, not English! These were the conditions the founders were fleeing, not the threat of the proximity of people with different skin pigmentation.

From a completely different angle, we have talked a lot about segregationism. But what about racial separatism. I've read a lot of Griffin's articles now. And by the way, someone said I didn't like Griffin; I neither like nor dislike the man. I just believe his arguments lack the logic, insight, and-most importantly- the knowledge necessary to be a credible source. If I met him I'd probably get along with him really well. He seems like a very nice person. Judging by his articles, though, he comes off to me as being a racial separatist. He went to Morehouse, an all black, all male college. He was an adjunct professor at ASU, an HBC. His son goes to or went to Bethany Christian Academy. He endorses a "black owned" grocery store in "Calhoun Superfoods." He downplays a mostly white community and expresses he wants to stay in a mostly black community in "Millionaire." I could go on...

Annette Allen is a professor at ASU, or now a dean... ASU is an HBC, with very few white students.

When the words categorical imperative came up after I tried to register for mediation I clicked them. I saw a lot of what I knew about morality. But I also saw a lot of what I should have taken in college about logic in morality. The wikipedia article outlines imperfect duty:

Imperfect duty

Second, we have imperfect duty, which is the duty to act only by maxims that we would desire to be universalized. Since it depends somewhat on the subjective preferences of mankind, this duty is not as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still morally binding.

At least according to Kant, isn't criticizing an institution for being majority white while participating in a diliberately majority black school-racial separation- immoral, illogical, or at least hypocritical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.105.71 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 May 2006

Hi, you haven't explained what your position is regarding the dispute, and neither have you stated what you would like to gain by mediation. Could you please reply here, thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hi. That last bit was just discussion about the situation in general. And it doesn't have a great deal to do with my position regarding the dispute. I'd be happy to let you know where I stand. Please scroll up to the reposting of my failed attempt at requesting mediation above. That should serve as a primary statement to draw from. In short, I think it's wrong to restate opinion as fact. And I feel that is what is happening here. What I would like to accomplish: Possibly an article that isn't so accusatory. As much fact as possible should be included. I encourage information about it having been suspected to have been started as a seg school. I don't think multiple mentions of this are necessary. I think any information about seg schools belongs on a seg school article.66.44.105.71 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alabamaboy

In many ways this is repeating what I've previously stated. The history section of the article states that the school was founded in response to desegregation. This appears to be the only main conflict in the article. To support this historic statement I have provided two main references. One is the Griffin article the anonymous editor does not like, which was published as an opinion piece in a small Alabama newspaper. I agree that it is not the strongest of references but it is valid. The other reference is a news article from the Montgomery Advertiser in which Archie Douglas, the current headmaster of the Montgomery Academy, is quoted as stating that the school was started in 1959 in what he believed was a reaction to desegregation of the public schools. This article was accessed through the paid archives of the Montgomery Advertiser [4] and was published on January 12, 2004.

Here is the complete section of the Montgomery Advertiser article dealing with all of this:

Archie Douglas, the headmaster of The Montgomery Academy, said the school was started in 1959 in what he believed was a reaction to desegregation of the public schools.

As I have said throughout this debate, I am totally willing to change the article to represent the anonymous editor's views if she can provide a reference or source for her views. I have also moderated the language of the article in an attempt to address her concerns and to show that the founding as the result of desegregation is the opinion of people. As the anonymous editor says in her statement, she knows the founders of the school and knows what their intentions were. While she seems like a nice person, Wikipedia's policy is to not allow original research, which is what her claim would be. Thanks for allowing me to comment.--Alabamaboy 13:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anything happening here?

Anything happening with the mediation?--Alabamaboy 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have stalled, let me have another look... - FrancisTyers 14:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous: I think it's wrong to restate opinion as fact. And I feel that is what is happening here. What I would like to accomplish: Possibly an article that isn't so accusatory. As much fact as possible should be included. I encourage information about it having been suspected to have been started as a seg school. I don't think multiple mentions of this are necessary. I think any information about seg schools belongs on a seg school article.

Alabamaboy: As for the article's info on seg academies and desegregation, this info is here to provide historical background and perspective to the history section.

Ok, I can see both points of view, from looking at the article as a whole, I think it is quite safe to say that the one comes off with the opinion that yes it was founded in response to desegregation. I think this is more due to the fact that the amount of information in the History section well outweighs any other information in the article.

I have to say that it is both well written and well sourced, but if there is more to the school than segregation it should be included. How about the other history of the school, is there any? I think with a more complete history section some of Anonymous' complaints would be allayed. In fact, not only does the lead mention this, but the whole History section mentions this. I would council that the references to desegregation be removed from the lead, which would also get rid of "many people believe", which can only be a good thing. I think the second paragraph of the History section could be cut slightly or removed, a pointed to desegregation left in its place.

Those are my initial observations, any comments? Alabamaboy, Anonymous? Remember, I'm not here to tell you what to do, I'm here to help mediate between the two parties and provide constructive suggestions of how to resolve the dispute. - FrancisTyers 14:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be expanded and will work to do this (the main problem is that I live out of state and don't have access to the school's history and other info, which isn't available online). I've also asked the anonymous editor to help with expanding the article, which would definatly be a great thing to do. I'd also be happy removing the weasel words, which I only added in response to the anonymous editor's comments. However, I strongly disagree with removing the reference to desegregation in the lead and taking out the second paragraph (which provides needed historic background to the issue). This is why the school was founded. It was mentioned in a US Supreme Court case refering to desegregation. The current headmaster stated that is why the school was founded.

I understand that you are trying to be even handed but in this case, even handedness is not appropriate unless basic Wikipedia standards are met. The anonymous editor has violated a number of basic Wikipedia guidelines (provide references, no original research) yet what she admits is her opinion is taken as the equal of well-documented facts. While I'm a fan of mediation and have even mediated disputes between other editors, I think that any participant in mediation should be expected to meet all Wikipedia standards as a condition of mediation. Not doing so troubles me greatly. --Alabamaboy 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I now see that Dystopos went ahead and removed the info from the lead, saying that the info was "unverififed." The new lead is not really acceptable to me because it seems to be watering down the verified info I did provide. As I said, it deeply bothers me that I can follow Wikipedia standards and then be "corrected" by an anonymous editor who hasn't followed any of Wikipedia's standards.--Alabamaboy 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see your concern. The main problem with the Anonymous editor is that she has not provided any new sourced information. If she knows about the school she should add to the article with sourced information instead of removing sourced information. Should the article become much larger, the segregation part of the History section would be put in perspective, and the balance restored. As a note, even handedness is always appropriate when dealing with anything other than vandalism. I think that the Anonymous editor is trying to act in good faith, but is having trouble understanding Wikipedia policies. It could be improved if she registered an account and looked at WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR, but I'm not going to throw out even handedness just for misunderstandings of policy. And as a note, I think that you are probably a much more experienced editor than the Anonymous, consider how long it took you to get a good grasp of the policies. I can tell you I really had no idea for several months after I signed up. Regarding the lead, it now asserts that the school was founded in response to desegregation, but it doesn't mention now that it doesn't discriminate in as clear terms.

Anonymous, do you have any constructive suggestions to make that would improve the lead and the history section, can you add more about the history of the school that would help restore a balance to the history section? Please try and read and digest WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR carefully. - FrancisTyers 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Two short notes: 1. The opinion is not stated as fact, Alabamaboy has written as in what he believes — believes means opinion, 2. If you know the founders, why not get them to write something about this on the school website. The school doesn't seem to have a very large section on History on their website, why not? - FrancisTyers 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about changing:

The same pattern of private school creation was also observed in Montgomery[5] and likely with the creation of the Montgomery Academy.

to:

The same pattern of private school creation was also observed in Montgomery[5] and it has been argued that the same applies to the creation of the Montgomery Academy.

My prose is awkward, but you get the idea, "argued" instead of "likely". - FrancisTyers 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can accept either of those options. Per your suggestions, I have added the caveat to the lead and have added more info to the article. However, the sentence above now reads "The same pattern of private school creation was also observed in Montgomery and with the creation of the Montgomery Academy" and that is how I want to leave it. Since that is a referenced statement, I see no reason why it should be changed unless the anonymous editor can provide a reference to the contrary.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I don't want you to misunderstand my comment about being even handed. I agree that one should always be even handed at Wikipedia. I also think the anonymous editor is acting in good faith. However, none of that permits POV, unreferenced, and original research edits to be made to articles here. There are certain standards all editors here must follow regardless of experience.--Alabamaboy 16:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree :) Anonymous has not replied for a while, so I think perhaps I'll wait until she does. If it seems like I've gone missing, give me a note on my talk page or email me, my watchlist is getting pretty long these days :) - FrancisTyers 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm back. Give me a while to look it all over. From scanning the thing through, I think we have at least 3 opinions as to how the article should read. The fact that such a strong issue is touched on makes it hard for any of them to back down.66.44.106.157 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous editor's response

Ok. This is a lot for me to take on at once. As FrancisTyers said, I am very new to this. I've been on online discussions before. But I've never had to conform to such a system. I think it is excellent that it exists. I feel like it is going to take a Herculean effort for me to make my case understood.

My very first contention- once I figured out what was going on and how to contribute to the discussion page- was that this article is clearly biased. I realize that some of us here have lived in Montgomery and some of us have not. We each have different life experiences which shape our thoughts. We each look at the school in a different context, no matter what we think of the school itself, private schools, the South, segregation, etc.

I took the time to read the Neutral Point of View page. It states:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions...

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

I feel- and if you read my posts, you will see I have felt throughout this discussion- the article, first written by Alabamaboy is biased and therefore not NPOV. What I have felt and not clearly stated is that the article asserts, rather than presents fairly, the view that the Montgomery Academy was founded as a segregation academy.

I submit that Alabamaboy's intentions are malevolent and based on a racial historical bias, despite his claims that he loves the Academy. I say this because of the very first stub he wrote:

The Montgomery Academy is a private school located in Montgomery, Alabama. Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools, the academy has since expanded in both diversity and academics to become one of the top elementary and high schools in Alabama.

Despite all the characteristics the school has, among which there are some very obvious physical facts, such as: the school has two campuses, it teaches K-12, there are 800+ students, it is located on Vaughn Road; Alabamaboy chose to write it was "Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts..."

The very language of the entry is accusatory and establishes a bias toward racial activism with a slant toward African American interests. The term “white” in itself can be seen as offensive to those who are of that demographic when used in such a light.

After having written the stub, and more than two months later, he eventually expanded the stub to an article and added references to support his argument. One of those references, The Guardian, is constantly accused of bias. And the accusation is that it is an anti-royal, anti-elite British publication. Private schools are more often than not elitist schools, and unabashedly so. I note the Montgomery Academy's motto is "The Pursuit of Excellence." The other reference presents both the view that MA was founded as what one would consider a segregation academy. But it also presents that those who argue such and seek a judgment against the schools are wrong. I note what did not make it to Alabamaboy’s article from the Department of Justice 1983 briefing:

"Respondents thus are in the posture of disappointed observers of the governmental process."

"Although the complaint asserted that "there are more than 3,500 racially segregated private academies operating in the country having a total enrollment of more than 750,000 children" (J.A. 24), it cited by name only 19 "representative" private schools."

"Respondents did not allege that they or their children had applied to, been discouraged from applying to, or been denied admission to any private school or schools."

Somewhat to his credit, he did state the case was dismissed based on the influence that the agency's determinations might have on third parties (such as private schools). However, the issues above and other issues which were relevant were completely omitted.

Between those early entries and the current article, Alabamaboy has included more sources which I feel only serve to establish more bias. No source demonstrates this more than Greg Griffin’s articles. I’m not sure how many times I stated this man, though admirable on many levels, has a racially slanted view. Please refer to my comments about racial separatists and bias not just for Greg Griffin, but for other sources like Annette Allen.

The inclusion of only these sources as fact goes directly against the idea of neutral point of view because it is an acceptance of the truth of claims- not because of the strength of the claim but because they correspond with Alabamaboy’s preconceived ideas. I challenge the truth of the claims on the bases that they are all presented in their respective news articles as opinion with clear language of opinion used, that they often come from racial separatists with bias against “whites”, and that each of the authors and interviewees whose opinions are stated do not know for a fact what they say is true. The example I have submitted earlier for the final basis is Douglas’ age at the time of the school’s founding. In addition I would like to note the phrase “I do not doubt” is commonly used in the vernacular as an exaggeration of opinion or a statement of understanding which may lack knowledge.

Example: “I do not doubt you are upset that your favorite team has lost the game,” is not an inappropriate statement for a total stranger to make to a sports gambler whose physical display at the end of an event would lead the stranger to feel that way. However, without the prior knowledge that money was at stake, the stranger has no way of knowing the gamblers motivation for being upset was a financial and not a sentimental stake in the game

Presented with conflicting points of view, Alabamaboy "went with" an anti-elitist publication and only one half of a legal document. I have made statements without reference earlier regarding my opinions as well as what I contend are Alabamaboy's opinions. I feel that in light of what I have just pointed out, there is a strong case- in written fact- that Alabamaboy is biased and presents biased views such as racial separatists’ opinions in an article he wrote and since that time on which he has not been at all bending on with regards to editing.

FrancisTyers,

You are right regarding your statement that my complaints would be allayed with the inclusion of a much more complete history of the school. As it stands, the schools current description and reported history are dominated with accusations of being founded as a segregation academy. The article comes off more, to me, as an attack rather than a report. There is plenty of information available on the school’s history regarding it’s location, notable alumni, etc. None of this has been included.

I only believe cutting out “many people believe” is a good thing if what you mean is that it should be replaced with better wording or clarification to the extent that MA has been accused of having been rather than proven to have been a segregation academy. I’ve said several times Greg Griffin’s opinions do not constitute fact. If his opinions are stated as fact, the issue is victim to something similar to a game of “telephone,” whereby through just one or two steps of separation the truth is changed. It is also what a lawyer would argue insubmissible as hearsay.

I think the second paragraph could be made much better through extensive editing. I also believe there ought to be a paragraph break between the mention of RSW as a founder and the comment “The school's founding was in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which required public school boards to eliminate segregation "with all deliberate speed."” or any other comment which is similar. If you read through the history of this discussion, you will find Alabamaboy removed this paragraph break after I placed it in the article. In this case, Alabamaboy has acted in bad faith knowing this would touch a nerve with me. He deleted nothing but empty space. Which is antagonistic and inappropriate. And I believe he was waiting for an inappropriate response from me. That will not happen. I, in fact, believe Alabamaboy is practiced in turning issues into a “can of worms” for those who do not agree with him. You will see his statements grow and intensify and further implicate those I have sought to clear from being named as founders of a segregationist school, the more I pushed for an impartial article.

A lot, I feel, could be lifted out of this article and taken to more appropriate spaces on Wikipedia. Why so much about segregation and the history of Brown v. Board of Education has to be in this article is beyond me. And I can only speculate Alabamaboy’s bias plays into this. A true chronicler would know that on a clickable cross-referencing site, a simple statement would suffice. With so much information presented by Alabamaboy in such a way, one of the fundamental principles of NPOV have been violated. That is NPOV means “Readers are left to form their own opinions.” And such is not the case here. Really, my one contribution to the article which stays at present- that RSW was active with the United Way and UNCF would be irrelevant and unnecessary were the article to be presented in a much more neutral way.

I would love to encourage the founders I know to contribute to the school’s webpage. But, for those of them who are still alive, contributing to a website by stating their intentions at the time of founding is neither a priority nor a good idea. A public statement that they did not found the school for segregationist reasons would only provoke responses and attacks from both the public and the media. Please see my comments about “can of worms” and “no moral high ground to be had defending an elitist school.” It is also for this reason I have little or no references from which to draw.

I want to respond to your comment from 8 May at 16:11, “The opinion is not stated as fact, Alabamaboy has written as in what he believes — believes means opinion.” Frankly I disagree with the first part, and in a big way. I reference the article on MA as it currently reads, “Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools…” “The school's founding was in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education…” “The same pattern of private school creation was also observed in Montgomery[5] and with the creation of the Montgomery Academy.” Where do you see opinion wording in these phrases? That is my main complaint.

66.44.104.252 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been civil throughout this discussion but I must take issue with the personal attacks in the anonymous editor's statement. As said before, the article uses a number of references to support what is said, including a statement by the current school headmaster who is obviously an expert on his own school (having led the school for number of years). Since I started this article I have tried to add info to it when I could. As I've also said I'd welcome the addition of additional history and academic and other info to this article from the anonymous editor (as long as the info meets the burden of Wikipedia:Verifiability) As with all Wikipedia articles, there is a lot that could be added here which I have yet to find the time to add (or, sometimes, have yet to find a sources of info on).

All along I have asked this anonymous editor to provide some sources (per Wikipedia:Verifiability) for her information. Instead of doing this, she attacks the credibility of every source I provide, says that I must simply trust her on what she says, and now she attacks me for why I wrote this article. None of this is in the spirit of Wikipedia or basic and solid research.--Alabamaboy 20:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I have yet to see one source. The page does appear to be skewed, but perhaps that is because the school is known for this above anything else... The characterisation of the Guardian as anti-royal and anti-elitist is banal.

A number of suggestions:

The school's founding was in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which required public school boards to eliminate segregation "with all deliberate speed."

According to the current headmaster, Archie Douglas, the school's founding was in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which required public school boards to eliminate segregation "with all deliberate speed."

The same pattern of private school creation was also observed in Montgomery[5] and with the creation of the Montgomery Academy.

The same pattern of private school creation was also observed in Montgomery[5] and according to Greg Griffin, with the creation of the Montgomery Academy.

Perhaps say "according several sources" b/c I don't think the anonymous editors likes the Griffen reference?--Alabamaboy 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools

Considered by some [ref1][ref2][ref3] to have been founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools.

For the sake of grammar and clarity, could this sentence read "Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to what many people believe were fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools,(ref) the academy now accepts students without regard to race or religion."? I ask this because I don't think the 1959 founding date is at issue :-).--Alabamaboy 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means :) - FrancisTyers 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:VERIFY, as much as I dislike "Weasel words", with appropriate sourcing in this instant they might be better than nothing. I think it might improve the situation to attribute the opinions/beliefs to the people who are espousing them rather than presenting them as fact.

Anonymous editor, you really have to stop questioning the motives of other editors, I would ask you to read both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I don't think you have made any personal attacks, but a hostile attitude will not bode you well. We're all trying to reach an amicable agreement and consensus here, so lets work together instead of doubting others motives. Furthermore, you state There is plenty of information available on the school’s history regarding it’s location, notable alumni, etc. None of this has been included. — then why have you not included it, it is easier to make allegations than to constructively and collaboratively improve an article. If you want to show good faith, add a section on notable alumni or the location and grounds of the school. Not only will it improve the article, but it will make the history section less prominent. Thoughts?... - FrancisTyers 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am okay with all of the suggestions you make above (while I too dislike the weasel word, I could accept it here in an attempt to reach consensus). If the anonymous editor has info on the notable alumni and so on, then I ask her to please add it in. I don't have access to any of that info (aside from the location but I actually never thought to add that info--my bad). The reason I added so much to the history section is that info was available online. I also think that as more info is added to the article then the desegregation stuff will be seen as what it is, a historical fact but only one part of the entire Montgomery Academy story.--Alabamaboy 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I don't want this page to appear skewed b/c the Montgomery Academy is primarily known today for being one of the best private schools in Alabama. The problem is that I don't have all the facts and info to expand the other sections of this article (I've done what I can with online sources). If the anonymous editor could do that, we'd all be happy. However, just because some sections are underdeveloped does not mean the history section should be scaled back to provide a sense of balance. Merely build up the underdone sections.--Alabamaboy 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, in general, information should be added and not removed. - FrancisTyers 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dystopos' response

I believe that it is indeed fair, based on cited evidence, to present the view that the Montgomery Academy was founded as a segregation academy. This would be the conventional view and meets the requirements of WP:NPOV. The opposing view, that it was not part of that historical phenomenon, despite the evidence, would be the extraordinary view which would require specific citations.

That said, I agree with the mediator that emphasizing this view in the lead paragraph is unecessary as it is covered adequately in the history section and will hopefully be covered more fully in the underdeveloped Segregation academies article. I have attempted to downplay the assertion in the article itself and, along with AlabamaBoy, look forward to seeing the other sections of this article grow. --Dystopos 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support FrancisTyers's reworking of that sentence in the lead. Would that deemphasize the issue enough in the lead?--Alabamaboy 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For now

I don't have time to respond to to everything. I just want to say I was taught at the institution in question by a very fine teacher not to make personal attacks in an argument. He also taught me that claiming such attacks are occuring is the last resort of someone who knows he is wrong.

If I come across as indignant, I feel it is for good reason.

I feel I have established bias in the sources. If we can use biased sources as the premise of articles on Wikipedia, what is to stop someone from citing Bestboro Baptist Church's website to prove that troops dying in Iraq are evidence the United States are cursed because of homosexuality or from citing an Irani newspaper for an article that says the Holocaust never happened?

To say The Guardian is antiroyal may be banal. But if what I say is unoriginal, then it has been said before- and probably for good reason. The antiroyal website ThroneOut cites praise from the Guardian in 3 of a total of only 11 press clips on their site: http://www.throneout.com/whatthepaperssay.asp For what it's worth, Wikipedia states 140,856 of the Guardian's 380,693 readers are Liberal Democrats. While the party is reported to have only 72,721 members on the same site.

Did you see the latest suggestions? Are they improvements, whats your take on them. - FrancisTyers 23:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of this for now and let FrancisTyers and Dystopos continue the mediation. I have stated my reasoning for the information here and have provided valid references. I have also agreed to the compromise language proposed by FrancisTyers. Saying anything else will merely be repeating myself. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I thought I addressed most of the suggestions. Something I didn't touch on was whether I should contribute to the article on Wikipedia. I wouldn't be disposed to add significant history without a significant revision of the article. To do so would be to add legitimacy to an article I know to be biased and wrong. And, as you know, I don't have any kind of wikisavvy. Really, the sooner Wikipedia goes back to being the place I do my research and ceases to be "that website where people are passing opinion as fact in an attack on the Montgomery Academy" the sooner I'll be content to never click the edit button again.

Furthermore, the addition of notable alumni while keeping the false statements about the school's founding would only serve to implicate the alumni as segregationists. I will not do that.

68.55.206.184 01:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is plainly not an attack. No one here has any interest in pushing a point of view except yourself. Despite your indignation, I have seen nothing at all that would challenge the accuracy of the facts presented herein. I fail to grasp the logic that every student of a private academy would be sullied by the circumstances of its founding. By that logic every Harvard grad would be a theologian and every Auburn alumnus an agricultural mechanic. If you elect not to contribute to this article, either by expanding it or producing better sources, I don't know what else there is to discuss. --Dystopos 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So you aren't going to contribute to the page? Not even to describe the schools grounds? Well, I don't know what I can do. As you can see the wording above has been suggested to try and remove any references to "opinion as fact", but if you won't discuss it my hands are quite tied. Mediation requires two parties to work together to try and achieve consensus through compromise, if there are going to be two recalcitrant editors then this mediation isn't going anywhere. I'd invite you to review other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution options, but I think with the current "I'm just not going to edit" attitude you won't get far. The thing that troubles me the most is that you have not once during this whole affair made an attempt to offer a suggestion of how to improve the article, as you can see above I tried to improve the wording of a few sentences, you haven't even done one. I mean, I could see the school being founded in opposition to bad quality education at public schools, or something like that, but you don't even mention that or try and source it. A sourced addition of "The founders of the school state that 'x'" where 'x' is a quote describing the motives (if it was because of bad public education) from a newspaper of the time. Where there any interviews with the founders in newspapers of the period? I guess starting a school seems like a fairly big deal to me, it would probably get mentioned in the local rag here. Anyway, I've stopped rambling, I'd encourage you to contribute with constructive suggestions and sourced edits, what we aren't going to do here is remove sourced information because in your opinion the source is biased. The best we can do is try to present the sources bias in a way that is amenable to all editors. - FrancisTyers 08:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the right track

The anonymous editor has made changes to the article and I think we are on the right track to reaching consensus. I don't think all of the info on Griffin is needed and is irrelevant but since the anonymous editor hates that reference so much I have totally removed it from the article (which I hope she will accept) and in its place merely use the headmaster's quote. I have also left in the qualifying info she provided on the Supreme Court case and the location info (although I moved that to its own section at the start of the article b/c it doesn't really fit in the history section). In return, I have used the neutral language Dystopos created for the lead and the language FrancisTyers created for elsewhere. I see this as a compromise between our two version. If the anonymous editor can agree to these changes I will support her qualifying changes while also dropping the Griffen reference.--Alabamaboy 14:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're heading in the right direction, but could you re-check the edits, we have now two references to "all deliberate speed". I think removing the Griffin reference is a good compromise, I hope the Anonymous editor agrees. - FrancisTyers 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed that problem. My bad for missing it.--Alabamaboy 14:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I made one final edit, which was to remove the statement about the Guardian reporter being a "British born columnist of Barbadan decent for The Guardian who believes the American South is the "wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line," was traumatized by skin heads as a child, and wrote "No Place Like Home, A Black Briton's Journey Through The American South." This is irrelevant and wrong to put all of this qualifying info on each person of color who is referenced in the article. After all, there is no qualifying statement about the current headmaster (who is a white older man) or the Supreme Court justices (who, at that time, were all white men). I'm not trying to stir up trouble here but the reporter works for a respected newspaper and that is all that needs to be referenced. To do overwise would be POV. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to play the race card, be my guest. I assure you my thoughts and intentions are nonracial. I do have a low tolerance for people obsessed with race of any color. References to race made it to my additions on Griffin and on Younge because they were of note- actually that's an understatement, they were central- in each of the sources.

I believe my last entry about Gary Younge provides context and establishes bias. Younge is fascinated with the American South. But he also has clear prejudices against it, evident in how he describes his childhood- both in the experience with skinheads and with the television programming he watched as a child.66.44.104.100 14:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing the race card, merely stating that you added qualifying statements on Griffen and Young that are inappropriate and were not added to other people, all white, who were referenced in the article. As I said, I'm willing to compromise by removing the Griffin reference and by accepting most of your qualifying statements. Young's reference, though, is to a general historic pattern seen in the South. If you wish, I can dig up additional references to back up what Young is writing about. --Alabamaboy 15:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hangon guys! We're getting some good work done here...

Private academies operated outside the scope of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling and could therefore effectively maintain racial segregation.

Is this even disputed? I mean the fact that they operated outside the BoE ruling and could effectively maintain segregation? Are there other sources than Gary Young? - FrancisTyers 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added new references to the seg academy info, include one from Educational Freedom in Urban America: Brown V. Board After Half a Century, a book published by the conservative CATO Institute, where they mention seg academies and then say, "Private school choice was once used to support racial discrimination in schools." I have removed one of the Young references but left the other. Is this acceptable?--Alabamaboy 15:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute the statement about operation outside of BvBE. I never did. I think it ought to be placed in a proper nonaccusatory context, though.

"merely stating that you added qualifying statements on Griffen and Young that are inappropriate and were not added to other people, all white" What do you call that, if not the race card? It actually sounds pretty racist to me.

Nowhere in any of the references does it comment on Douglas' race. I have a picture to go by, but that would be inappropriate. Nowhere in the Montgomery Advertiser does it say anything about Allen's ethnicity. And I haven't made any direct comment about what her skin looks like, only that she works at an HBC. I haven't made any reference to Griffin's race, other than that he went to an HBC and sends his children to majority black schools. Like with Douglas, I had a picture. But it would be inappropriate to speculate, regardless of how convincing the picture is. (Actually, I'm sure there are a thousand cases in his writing that he identifies himself as African American. But I still mentioned nothing on his race.) Younge's Barbadan ancestry made it in my comments and my addition to the article because that is what the Guardian article said and that is wat the Wikipedia article on him said.66.44.105.138 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets ignore the incivility. Anonymous, how do you think the article is looking now? - FrancisTyers 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's coming along. Look, I realize this is going to have to be a compromise. But I won't ever be able to stop questioning Alabamaboy's motivations in writing and editing this article. Maybe that's uncivil. But I still think it's relavant. The issue of segregation was the first thing he wrote about. And it has remained central in the article. There is so much on segregation it is almost hardly an article about the school. I just think we should move a great deal of the info to a page on segregation and link it in through clickable words, simplifying what is in the Academy article. It seems like something similar is done across the board on Wikipedia. At present I feel like Alabamaboy is trying to "punish" the school and it's founders with the information included and through word organization. That, along with proclaimed racial agendas in the authors of some of the sources, is what has me claiming bias. 66.44.105.138 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try to not question the motives of others, I agree that there is a lot about segregation, but I can forsee a time when there is more to the History section and the article is fleshed out more that some of it could be moved out into segregation academies. I don't think Alabamaboy is trying to punish anybody, and you should really try and refrain from making such accusations. A quick question, are there any photographs of the school you know of that could be uploaded under a free license ? I definately think the article could benefit from one or two :) The process will go a lot smoother and easier if people contribute and collectively work together instead of just removing each others contributions. - FrancisTyers 15:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sslarch.com/projects/montacad_06.jpg I don't know if this is free license. That's the Garzon Library. It was built around 1994. The campus is pretty sprawled out. You couldn't get it all in one shot.66.44.105.138 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The best source of GFDL-compatible photos would be your own camera. Pretty much anything available online is copyrighted. Don't worry too much about that for now. Regarding the continuing tensions, the history of the article and the perception of the motivations for it are irrelevant and it is pointless to discuss them here. The only thing that matters is the content of the article. If you have issues with the current content, please describe what should be done to improve it. We would like to be able to use internal links to offload some more of the context into the overall history of segregation academies, but currently the coverage of that history is thin. Consider that to be the direction we are heading, though. We would like to be more specific about the history and founding of MA, but currently the documentation we have found is thin. Consider research to be an ongoing task (one with which you may be well-placed to assist with). --Dystopos 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In a continuing attempt to reach consensus, I have cut back on some of the segregation background and redirected to the seg academy article. Hope this helps.--Alabamaboy 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to Dystopos's comment above, I have offloaded much of the history to the segregation academies article, resulting in my ability to cut back on some of the history here (which I have just done). I don't believe, though, that I could support removing any more of the history here because some of it is needed to give historical context. So I disagree with the statement "Consider that to be the direction we are heading." Best, --Alabamaboy 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page. I wrote that before I saw your latest edits. I'm sure the segregation academies article still needs work. I agree we don't need to downplay reality any more here. --Dystopos 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the seg academy article needs a lot of work. I'll try to fix it up more when I get a chance but that requires more research, which I don't have time for right now.--Alabamaboy 18:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.montgomeryacademy.org/images/hp_pics/Pic4.jpg This looks like the lower school. But I can't say for sure.

http://www.montgomeryacademy.org/images/hp_pics/Pic10.jpg MA's distinctive spire/steeple. THe story is that it comes from the governor's mansion campus. I believe a replica was made for the lower school.

http://www.montgomeryacademy.org/images/hp_pics/Pic13.jpg The Jenny Garden. Given by friends of a girl who died while still in school. 66.44.105.138 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dystopos- I would need a telescopic lense about the size of the hubble's to snap a shot of the Academy with my camera. The Academy was founded by friends, over dinner, in a private home. I can check to see if minutes exist. I doubt they do. I can tell you the school was never chartered to exclude anyone unless you count the fact it is private and funded by tuition which not everyone can pay.

If you don't have a way to get a freely licensed picture don't worry about it. The fact is that private academies created in private homes over dinner (or otherwise) by well-intentioned people in the American South in the 1950s and 60s perpetuated segregated education at a time when white people here were almost unanimously against having it forced on them. The reason no one said "this is a school for whites only" is because they didn't have to say it. It was obvious, and it remains obvious. If you have some heretofore unrevealed reason to believe that MA differed from every other segregation academy that was created by well-intentioned people in the American South in the 1950s and 60s, then by all means, let us know. The historical facts are not an indication of bias or opposition. For the article NOT to mention the wider phenomenon into which MA fits would be an instance of bias. --Dystopos 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If the Academy was founded by well intentioned people who didn't wish to exclude any racial groups, is it fair to call the Montgomery Academy a segregation academy? Wouldn't that be a misuse of the term?68.55.206.184 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The term is not limited to institutions founded by people who expressly excluded non-whites. The term rightfully extends to private schools that effectively perpetuated segregation in schooling ragardless of intent. If you build two water fountains and put an a committee of white people who live in Montgomery, Alabama in 1959 in charge of reviewing applications and collecting fees to use one of them and leave the other one freely accessible, you've created segregated water fountains. If the water in the private fountain is better, you've created separate but unequal water fountains. Just because there's no "whites only" sign doesn't mean that the context disappears. --Dystopos 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, regular height water fountains and non-handicap stalls perpetuate an unfairness to the disabled, even when handicap accessible ones are available. There are no laws forbidding the use of regular water fountains by the handicapped. And if they can reach them, I encourage them to. The case is they often can't. You seem to want the world to have to bend further to take a drink.

The analogy might be better if we used a high set fountain for tall people versus a short set one for short people. But either way, I think my point is made.68.55.206.184 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's only the half of it. Consider a group of individuals who have the resources to filter tap water so as to make it healthier. (The current tap water my contain trace amounts of lead, chemicals, the usual. It's just bad quality water.) They build their own fountain and they drink from it. Everyone around them says it is unfair the group of individuals get to drink from a nicer fountain. But if everyone drinks from the nicer fountain it will run out of its source of water and ability to filter. If the individuals continue with their private fountain, the few will gain from their ability to collaborate to make progress in water preparation. While the many, who have not collaborated but relied on tap water being provided to them(whether by choice or inability to do otherwise), continue as usual. The kicker is the many could take notes from the few and improve their own water. But, they feel their energy is better used shouting at the few for having better water.68.55.206.184 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not exactly it either... The group buys cases of bottled water, the fancy kind with the mountains on the label. The group goes on paying waterworks fees and not consuming tap water. And everyone else is mad they don't get to drink from bottles despite the fact the water company has more money to now better the quality of the tap water, because their revenue per gallon is up. Is it the group's fault for buying bottled water?

Didn't we go through this before with something about a pit of snakes and a raccoon? 68.55.206.184 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To be honest, I feel this is a game of chase with words

Without speculating about Alabamaboy's intentions...

I would like to point out that I have been able to add paragraph upon paragraph to the sections on Athletics and Facilities without reference- and also without protest.

However, when I add empty space to the section on history or so much as change one word to its synonym, it is reverted within 20 minutes. When I make a request for change, I get a response more in line with "give 1, take 2" than "meet me in the middle." I end up getting what I want in one case. Then two other things are brought in that I would not approve of. Or, in the case of moving of information; I still see a lot of overlap with the article on segregation academies and this article. What was deleted from this article was the statement that there are differing views as to why white parents pulled their students from public schools. I feel this only serves to supress one point of view and bolster another. Do you see what I mean?

I feel the article has gotten worse in the history section, despite efforts to move some of the unneccesary information to a more appropriate article.

Everyone is an editor on Wikipedia. The fact that no one has removed your list of state championships isn't evidence of systemic bias, it merely reflects the fact that the information is uncontroversial. (Unlike, say the number of football national championships won by the University of Alabama which has been the subject of much debate -- debate which is reflected in the Wikipedia article, history and talk page on that subject.)

A certain amount of overlap is to be expected in the history section. It is fitting to give a brief summary to place MA in the context of other schools of its type and to point those seeking more comprehensive background to the proper article. It is apparent that the decision to enrol in a private academy is not one-dimensional without going to the trouble to emphasize it here. The point we've gotten to is differences in perspective. I and at least two others believe that the most neutral view is that MA's early history is bound tightly into reactions to integration of public schools. You believe that the neutral view is that MA is unique among its peers. One view is cited, the other is not. I don't see what else we can do to satisfy you at this point unless verifiable information comes to light challenging the view of the other editors. --Dystopos 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is the rub. We are not all editors here. Note that I do not have a Wikipedia account. And neither do the majority of the people who use the site. I feel this is why I don't see eye to eye either with you or Alabamaboy. If I may, you both perceive Wikipedia to be a forum while I perceive it to be a resource.

What really "gets me going" is that statements can be made here and made societal cannon. One could go to Google, or Answers.com, and looking for info on the Montgomery Academy find the Wikipedia article which offers the most information. The wikipedia article is usually enough for the web surfer. And he reads the Academy was founded as a segregation school. He doesn't bother to look at the references. They don't matter to him. How many times do you wonder who has written the articles in Encyclopaedia Brittannica?

So, the Academy was founded to perpetuate segregation. But says who? Says a man who referred to the American South as the "wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line," who grew up traumatized by white racists and who had a long distance obsession with the American civil rights movement. Says a man who shuns schools with white students, who has stated the Montgomery Academy is not a good place for black students and that he believes the Academy will continue to raise it's tuition to "weed out" black students, and who has also stated he believes Satan has children walking on Earth and that he has met them. Says a woman who teaches at a school started for only black people who criticises a school for having few students who are not white. Says a headmaster who has no contact with the founders and who came from very far away and who has only been at the Academy for a fraction of its existence. Says a court case lost by the people complaining that the school acted to continue segregation.

If an article can be made off of opinions and a failed court case, then what is to stop someone from writing articles stating say, OJ Simpson definitely killed his ex wife? This really speaks to the accountability of Wikipedia. And I think it is a subject that needs to be addressed.

We who are editors are trying to make Wikipedia as accurate and authoritative as we can. The view I describe above is consistent with that goal. Your view is not. You need to get over the idea that the only evidence linking MA to segregation academies is Greg Griffin's opinions. That's just ignorant. The subject of Wikipedia's accountability is being addressed in multiple forums and arenas and is well beyond the scope of this discussion, which is limited to the article at hand. If you have nothing more to contribute to the matter at hand, then please stop harassing us. --Dystopos 23:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dystopos,

I have no desire to harass you. I'm sorry you feel that I have. If anything I say personally offends you, I apologize. I have attempted to work within a system I am very new to. I have established the bias that is present. That has been rejected through the system. Now I question the system. I want to impart on you that as an editor it is your job to present the truth. And the article on the Academy is a lie.

Quick note, we don't necessarily report the truth: As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

For your other complaints. There are plenty of sources to say that "OJ Simpson definitely didn't kill his ex wife", which is why (without looking at the OJ Simpson article, I would guess that there will be a fairly comprehensive exposition of both sides of the story. In this case there seems to be only one side of the story. A fairer analogy would be if OJ Simpson did kill his wife, there are many sources which point to yes and none that point to no. This is covered in WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

He doesn't bother to look at the references. They don't matter to him. How many times do you wonder who has written the articles in Encyclopaedia Brittannica?

Actually I can't ever remember having read a Brittanica article, but if I had done I sure would be interested, but then I'm the kind of guy who doesn't rely on Wikipedia as a source either. Wikipedia is great for summarising references, there are some really great articles, but if I would never cite it in academic work. Why? Because I can go and find the references that Wikipedia cites, and then cite them. If the material isn't cited then there is no way of knowing how reliable it is.

On a ending note, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and see if you can find more reliable sources to show the intentions for which the academy was founded. It doesn't have to say that it was not founded to perpetuate segregation, but as I said, perhaps it was founded because of low standards in public education, or for some other reason. - FrancisTyers 01:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers,

Thanks for the idea. If I could maybe find some information about Alabama children's performance on a national level similar to what wehave today with standardized testing. But I don't think that existed back then.

68.55.206.184 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as of now, 36 pages-17,503 words.

Of what? :) - FrancisTyers 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Better believe it... this has to be the longest discussion I've ever seen. Wait, it's the only one I've ever seen.

I want to point out a phrase from the reliable source page: An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.

I feel the previous is central to my argument.

I also want to point out section 3 of the policy on verifiability: 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Sooo... I can just ask to have everything- the whole article- removed?68.55.206.184 02:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well not really as the majority of it is sourced and attributed per the policies. You can remove unsourced information to the talk page, but I think in the current situation that would do more harm than good. If we may try a different tack. Can you list sentences that you would like to see changed or removed from the history section. I count around 17 sentences in the history section, please don't just list them all. If there are between 1 and lets say 7 that you are concerned about, please list them below, prefixing each one with a '#'.

This is an example. (# This is an example)

I don't know much about the American legal system, but would I be right in thinking that to be mentioned in a case in the Supreme Court is quite important and notable? Presuming we exclude that paragraph, then there are only 3 paragraphs we need to be concerned with. I would like to point out that the article does appear in places to be the epitomy of WP:NPOV, e.g.

Archie Douglas, the headmaster of the Montgomery Academy for the last decade, has stated that he believes the school was started in reaction to desegregation of the public schools and that he is sure "that those who resented the civil rights movement or sought to get away from it took refuge in the academy." (He also notes that the school now has a philosophy of openness and does not discriminate with regards to race).[4]

We state the name of the guy. We then state his position, why he is notable. We then state his opinion on one subject, quoting him. We then state his opinion on another subject, related to the first. We finish with a reference.

Is there one sentence you could remove and be happy with? Or is there one qualifier you could add? Thanks for your continued patience and contributions. :) - FrancisTyers 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think this discussion is bad, check out Talk:Armenian Genocide, or Talk:Abortion — behind every page (pretty much) there is a story. :) - FrancisTyers 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

I may be going on less sleep than I have in years right now. But, judging from info I dug up after you admitted you don't know much about the legal system, I have to say you are much more inclined to forego sleep than I am. 4AM is it? Kudos on your interest in languages. I study them myself. When you learn another language it opens the door to understanding a whole other culture and way of thought better.

My response to what you just asked could be really long. If you get a response that makes sense for 4 paragraphs and then is just a long string of 1 letter, I have fallen asleep on the keyboard.

Lets forget about section 3 of verifiability and work with "opinion" as defined by reliable source. I came on the scene -what, a week ago?- crying foul that the article was biased. That would have been hard to prove in the state the article was when I first saw it. In my defense, I hadn't read all these pages about 3 pillars, etc. As the article evolved in the last 7 days, I would say it has become more clearly biased. What WAS happening a week ago was that opinion was being passed as fact. This has been a real source of friction between Alabamaboy and me. And I think I've mentioned my feelings on this numerous times.

Throughout the discussion I have brought up and responded to some philosophical points. They have been interesting and fun to discuss. They have also been extremely distracting. I only say that because it has taken so long to get where we are. And still, at any moment, some discussion about what we-us, personally- think about the issue and each other could totally derail the progress.

Back to opinion... The original article read, "Founded in 1959 by the city's leading white citizens in response to fears of desegregation efforts in the public schools..." without any reference. The first sentence from the old history section read, "The Montgomery Academy has its origins in the 1955 Supreme court ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which stated that school boards should eliminate segregation "with all deliberate speed."," without any reference. The wording of the article a week ago, I would say is biased in a way I have a hard time describing. An American comedian, Steven Colbert, is a master of lampooning this. As a whole, the history section does a good job of implicating the Academy in segregationist behavior. It's the bringing together through clever wording of two facts, or two things that have not been disproven, or a combination of the two to imply something else entirely that I object to. Lines are being drawn between issues. The current article still has this: "Montgomery Academy was founded in 1959 during the period when the desegregation of public schools was hotly debated..." Ok. It's like you would think someone was a drug addict in college if you read, "Billy went to college in the late 60's during a period when campus drug use was common."

No, but seriously, back to opinion... Well, I was going to point out what I didn't like in the current article. I just checked it. Dystopos has made some really, really productive changes. I still don't completely like the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph. But it's more than halfway to where I think it should be. Maybe "The era in which the Montgomery Academy began saw a broad reaction..."

Under these recent chenges, I think the article really represents what a wikipedia article should be. A lot of what needs to be known that is basic information is covered. The information regarding the school being pointed out for it's lack of African American students and the context of B v BE and integration is there. And it isn't "slammed home" the way it was before. 68.55.206.184 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, language and languages are one of my passions :) And yeah it was around 3:30am before I got to bed. Fortunately I didn't have work today ;) I'm actually a big fan of the Colbert Report, my favourite section is The Wørd — it has me and my flatmate in stitches. This is a fast changing article, so I won't comment further here, but wait for the response below. - FrancisTyers 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A fresh look

For once I looked at the article and not just the discussion. It appeared to me that in an effort to build a solid case to defend the characterization of MA as a segregation school (against what I believe is an unfounded attack) that an inordinate amount of evidence was piled up and picked apart. I removed some redundant paragraphs, a few general references which AlabamaBoy has already added to the segregation academies article, and the rehashing of the findings of Allen v. Wright, which also has its own article. I don't think we're saying too much, now, about the context of MA's founding. We do lack details on the later history of the academy, and I created a redlink to a projected article on its founder, Robert Schoenhof Weil, --Dystopos 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,

I really liked your most recent work on the article. I mentioned above that I suggest a couple of changes to the current article. But the changes are minor. And, I think what is currently there is alright anyway.68.55.206.184 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes as long as the information I added back in is kept. I have compromised on many aspects of this article to try and reach a consensus but the new language you wrote was vague and tiptoed around the issue. There is no need to do this when valid facts are presented. Anyway, I'm okay with the article as it is now but I will not support removing the info I reinserted.--Alabamaboy 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I really don't see the need to make a court case here out of the obvious fact that MA is a segregation academy. Just like we don't need a long description of the modern calendar to justify someone's birthdate. I don't think I was vague. Anyway, that's my opinion. --Dystopos

I agree about not having to present a court case. As long as the article actually states this referenced fact as it currently does, I support your rewrites.--Alabamaboy 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree to support the current version of the article. I'm not totally thrilled with it and I'm sure the anonymous editor won't be totally thrilled with it either but it seems like a decent compromise version. All of the references the anonymous editor didn't like and questioned have been removed (Griffin, Younge) and the article states that the deseg founding is "reputed" to be true and merely quotes the headmaster's opinion on this. The history section is in proportion to the article and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the info on the school. So what do people think? Is this something we can agree on?--Alabamaboy 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well... Back to square one. 66.44.104.246 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, back to square one? Almost all of your objections to the article have been addressed by this version.--Alabamaboy 14:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused, back to square one? - FrancisTyers 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement I made was an exaggeration. We certainly aren't where we started. We've come a long way. I'm just discouraged to see 8 edits in a row by Alabamaboy with summaries including: "made changes to history section to reinsert deleted info" and "seg academies were not just in the south" it seems like we are reverting back to an article about seg academies and not the Montgomery Academy.

I only reinserted one statement, which was compromise language first suggested by FrancisTyers. The other edits were minor rewrites or typo corrections that didn't change the meaning of what Dystopos wrote. As I said, the article now addresses all of the concerns you raised. Is it possible to agree on this version?--Alabamaboy 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My apology--I should have been clearer in my edit summary statements. The changes I made were not that big and the article is still mostly as Dystopos wrote it. I also want to apologize for the bad blood we have had going here. My intentions with writing the article initially were never to drag MA into the mud. Honestly, I never knew much about MA's history until I researched a few online sources when I was preparing to write that first little blurb on the school. Because of you, I've now read up on Robert Schoenhof Weil and he seems like an amazing person. I'd be happy to help you create an article on him for Wikipedia. I enjoy researching and writing articles and my only goal here is to write the best and most accurate articles I can. As it is now, the article merely states that MA was "refuted" to be founded b/c of desegregation and then follows with the headmaster's quote (followed immediately with him stating that MA is no longer this way, which I feel is an important point to make). The reason I am so passionate about not ignoring this issue is that many people believe this is why MA was founded. If the article ignores this issue then people will not believe the article when it shows--in the strongest possible way--that the school is no longer this way. Anyway, I apologize for any trouble or pain I've caused you with all of this and I hope we can resolve this, perhaps by agreeing on this version of the article.--Alabamaboy 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an apology is necessary. We both strive to make Wikipedia better in our own eyes. That's what this is all about, right? I've got to thank you for your patience- well everyone for their patience- in putting up with a newbie here.

I'd like to see an article on RSW. I've got a whole book on the guy and his business as a resource. I'm going to attempt to make a "stub." All articles start as one, right? We'll see where we get from there.66.44.104.246 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can either start the article as a stub or write a complete article and go with that. Let me know if you need any help on it or on other aspects of Wikipedia. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eight edits, few changes

You can see the diff of what was changed here: [5].

It seems to me that the only changes to substance that Alabamaboy made were:

Like a number of private schools formed in the United States during this time period, the ... is reputed to have been founded in

I think it is fair to say that it is "reputed" to have been founded in reaction to the BvB ruling.

Archie Douglas, the headmaster of The Montgomery Academy, is quoted stating that the school was started in 1959 in what he believed was a reaction to desegregation of the public schools. He then said, "I am sure that those who resented the civil rights movement or sought to get away from it took refuge in the academy. But, it's not 1959 anymore and The Montgomery Academy has a philosophy today that reflects the openness . . . and utter lack of discrimination with regard to race or religion that was evident in prior decades."

I think it is fair to quote the current headmaster of the school.

Archie Douglas, the headmaster of the Montgomery Academy for the last decade, has stated that he believes the school was started in reaction to desegregation and that he is sure "that those who resented the civil rights movement or sought to get away from it took refuge in the academy." He also notes that the school now has a philosophy of openness and does not discriminate with regards to race.

I think we can do without duplicating part of this.

Alabamaboy's note: The reason for the duplication is that the first quote was within a reference (and is seen only at the bottom of the page). I'd be happy to remove it, though, if people want.--Alabamaboy 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the duplication.--Alabamaboy 16:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

a lawsuit by black parents decided in 1984 by the U.S. Supreme Court

Context, I see no problem with this.

I'm reluctant to edit the page for fear of being seen as biased. But I think the current page is fairly tight. The one change I would make is to remove the dual references to the opinion of the current headmaster. One will suffice. - FrancisTyers 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the duplication:

Archie Douglas, the headmaster of the Montgomery Academy for the last decade, has stated that he believes the school was started in reaction to desegregation
Archie Douglas, the headmaster of The Montgomery Academy, is quoted stating that the school was started in 1959 in what he believed was a reaction to desegregation of the public schools.

Aren't these two saying pretty much the same thing? Do we need to quote him more than once on the same topic ? - FrancisTyers 16:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, I think this is probably a genuine mistake, we've been chopping and changing so much that redundancies do crop up... - FrancisTyers 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The duplication resulted from the quote being in a reference and in the text of the article. I've fixed this now. And yes, it was a mistake.--Alabamaboy 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm fine with this

I've reviewed the article. And I'm fine with it in it's current state. I think the Douglas quote is a bit superfluous. And I would comment that Douglas is not an expert on the school's founding. But the quote is in context. The history section is not accusatory a-la-Steven Colbert.

The right words which establish opinion are there. And the two first sentences of the second paragraph, while they make the bolder statement, are not controversial. The headmaster simply opines- as do I- the school, after it's founding, would have been looked at as an alternative to desegregated schools by parents of potential students who resented integration. 66.44.104.246 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thankyou both for your patience, your willingness to compromise and the constructive editing on both sides. There were problems, but we've overcome them, and I'm certain it has resulted in a better article. I have to say, this is the best bit of mediation for me :) Anonymous, I hope you enjoy browsing Wikipedia in future, and perhaps have time to contribute some more. - FrancisTyers 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to FrancisTyers and Dystopos and the anonymous editor for all the work here. I think the article has arrived at a good place. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Wikipedia's shortcomings

I thought this would be interesting(from the wikipedia article on wikipedia):

"Wikipedia has become increasingly controversial as it has gained prominence and popularity, with many critics alleging that Wikipedia's open nature makes it unauthoritative and unreliable, that it exhibits severe systemic bias and inconsistency, and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals. Wikipedia has also been criticized for its use of dubious sources, its disregard for credentials, and its vulnerability to vandalism and special interest groups. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of articles."

The next part went on to say The Guardian had published an article about wikipedia stating it would never be a real encyclopaedia. Verdad 17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In many ways, Wikipedia is an example of the worse is better design philosophy. Wikipedia will never be authorative, but as I think I've said before, neither is Britannica. To use an encyclopaedia for academic work is a serious don't, however for a quick reference, for somewhere to look for information and references, Wikipedia is great, and is greater the more references and information we have :) If you look at the OED definition of encyclopaedia, I think Wikipedia easily fulfils it, A literary work containing extensive information on all branches of knowledge, usually arranged in alphabetical order. or An elaborate and exhaustive repertory of information on all the branches of some particular art or department of knowledge; esp. one arranged in alphabetical order. — no mention of authorative, and I think we surpass "alphabetical" ;) Basically caveat emptor, I wouldn't look at a Britannica article uncritically, as I wouldn't look at a Wikipedia article uncritically. - FrancisTyers 18:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an important subject, but I think it should be discussed elsewhere. (re: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines) --Dystopos 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but... How do you respond to the fact that when you google something, the 3rd thing that pops up is the wikipedia article? Verdad 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)