Talk:Briarcrest Christian School

Advert for Briarcrest? Actual history glossed

This whole article reads like a brochure to woo prospective students. It has been changed since the last time I read it, when it reflected Briarcrest's actual history as one of the church-sponsored private schools founded for white students to attend after a Memphis court mandated school busing to integrate the public schools in 1971-72. Winter Maiden (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there was just one sentence about the reason for its establishment, and that sentence had been removed at some point. I restored it. I also moved the promotional content out of the lead section and into the body, and trimmed/reworded it. What do you think now? --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have some information in the article about when the school become 'integrated' since it started as a segregation academy. Did it only become 'integrated' by force or what? Is there any information as to how integrated it actually is?Mylittlezach (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Briarcrest Christian School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110313081846/http://tarheelblue.cstv.com:80/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/mcdonald_leslie00.html to http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/mcdonald_leslie00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead

Billhpike, can you post here the highest quality sources that say this was "founded in 1973 as a segregation academy"?

There seems to be some doubt about it. For example, Joseph Crespino writes that it was founded with an open admissions policy. But no black students went there. The local NAACP called it a "racist place" that no black student would go to regardless of its admissions policy. Then he quotes an education task force coordinator, commenting in 1973: "These days, Christian schools and segregation academies are almost synonymous." (In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 248.) SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I think Kravitz & Mutter and Nevin & Bills are strong sources supporting the conclusion that this school is a segregation academy. In particular, the central thesis of Nevin & Bills is that this school is a segregation academy. That being said, I think WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV may be appropriate for the lead. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi Bill, according to Crespino, the Lamar Society ("a group of liberal southerners concerned about desegregation") funded a two-year study that culminated in the Nevin and Bills book, The Schools That Fear Built.

Is that book a disinterested source strong enough to support the point as a statement of fact? It seems that they are arguing that it was functionally equivalent to a segregation academy. But the lead says that it was actually founded as one.

What is the whole passage from Kravitz & Mutte? There are dots at a crucial point.

Given the ambiguity, should it not be removed from the lead and discussed lower down where you can present the arguments? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The ommitted text in Kravitz & Mutte is a citation to Coffey v. State Educational Finance Commission. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a Time magazine article from 1975, "Segregated Academies", that tends to support what you're saying. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Almost all sources that discuss this school in depth give great weight to the racial controversies associated with its history, so I feel that MOS:LEADREL obliges us to reference such controversies in the lead. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue is the accuracy of "was founded in 1973 as a segregation academy". Perhaps you could think of another way to express the point. I've done some of the reading now, and I can see this is too complex for me to be able to suggest anything quickly, so I'm going to leave you to it. Thank you for the replies. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I do not think that there is a consensus to remove the racial controversies from the lead. The racial controversies have recieved great weight in multiple reliable sources over several decades. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted edit 867733195. The IP editor claimed it was "speculative. As described above, the assertion that the school was a Segregation academy is well documented. It has been discussed elsewhere that the lede does not have to be fully referenced if the topic is covered and referenced elsewhere in the article. If the editor didn't like the paragraph, it should have been tagged, not deleted. The next time this happens in this article, I'lnil just figure it is vandalism. Rhadow (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I requested page protection.

Protection was denied, likely correctly. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to call disruptive editing vandalism. It's my feeling that the Time magazine piece, along with the other sources, are plenty to state it was a segregation academy. The fact that the administration was aware it was going to be a de facto seg academy is enough to say it was founded as such, IMO. Obviously, that is a bit more contentious. And, Billhpike, I concur with your bump up in quality rating. You guys have done some pretty impressive work on this and the other seg academy articles. It would be great (hint, hint) if you worked one up to GA or FA. That period is probably the most significant era in US education for the 20th century. John from Idegon (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Briarcrest Christian School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Review

• The LEAD should be a summary of the whole article. It will need expansion. See MOS:INTRO for more.
• Not strictly required for GA (at least not by me) but it would be nice if sources 13, 20, 21, 27 could be fixed/expanded
• The infobox photo should have ideally have a caption though it's obvious what it is. More strictly, all the photos should really have an ALT.
• Would suggest changing Notable People to Alumni & Faculty.
• Not all the sources for that section establish their connection to Briarcrest
• Does the school have any academic achievements worth noting? In general several of the sections suggested at WP:WPSCH/AG#OS at least some of which seem relevant here are missing.
• Could the citation for the few students (if any) being black be made clear? Given that the next sentence has two sources it's not as clear which info comes from which sources.
• The time source (backed by the school's website) suggests the High School opened in 1974 (1975 was its second school year). I'm presuming that this is the source for that sentence
• Where in Allen's testimony does it break out how the 3800 students were distributed?
• In 1979 HS tuition was up to 1100 according to the source
• Sourcing, from what I'm seeing, doesn't seem clear that the two students referred to here were not current students: None of its 3,800 students were black; indeed, only two black students had ever enrolled in Briarcrest's regular classes, and just 46 more in its summer programs
• In 2 different places there's an Uncle Tom quote from Allen. From what I've seen in sources there's more variety to choose from. Could one of these be modified so it's not so repetitive?
• Is there a secondary source that be used to cite the info from Allen v Wright
• What's the source for In 1989 the school split from the founding church?
• How did it go from nearly bankrupt to successful enough to build a 43 million dollar building?
• Speaking of which I know from the issues with the page that there were/are two campuses. This is alluded to in the 2000s section but this is never explicitly spelled out. This is part of the sixth bullet point about overall structure.
• Is there a reason the Blind Side movie but not book is addressed in the 2000s? Given current sourcing and from what I remember when I read it, seems like it would have information about the school that could be sourced for that time period.
• Most of the first paragraph of Values, programs are not satisfied by the source
• Accreditation and affiliations section has no source
• Multiple sources will likely be needed for the first paragraph of Sports
• I don't know if the Freeze paragraph is necessary. Feels too much like NEWS.
• The source supporting Afterward, Allen said he was glad the tax code could not be "used as a weapon" by those who disagreed with the school's "policies or politics." is actually about the school nearly closing. Good source too - info could be part of the answer for how did it go from nearly bankrupt to successful.

Discussion

Just a note that I'm only sporadically available at the moment so I might not finish this review until early next week. However, since I have some "obvious" fixes even before I do a detailed reading, I'll go ahead and claim this and start. I would encourage the nom, and other interested editors, to begin any changes before I finish the review. Please note that I know a LOT of work has gone into the history section of this article and appreciate that and understand why it has been nominated. As indicated above, however, I'm thinking there's some amount of content development left to do to satisfy GA criteria. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billhpike: My initial review is done. I have a few sources I'm working on obtaining to do a check but there's a lot there for you to dive into. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; really useful suggestions. PRRfan (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billhpike and PRRfan: Doesn't look like there's been any work on this article and absent any updates will close this review in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed feedback. I have been busy IRL and don't have the time to make change before the deadline. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go ahead and close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

WSB-TV article

Perhaps worth incorporating: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/for-channel-2-anchor-sophia-choi-reporting-on-bullying-is-personal/875633874/

Recent NYT article

• Elizabeth, Spiers (August 28, 2023). "I Have a Pretty Good Idea Why Michael Oher Is Angry". New York Time. p. A19.

I feel that Elizabeth Spiers' commentary should be referenced by this article. I want to wordsmith it in, but I'm too busy, so I'm posting the link here if other editors want to try. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)