Talk:Forsyth Country Day School

A concern

Hi Billhpike, this is another school where you've added to the lead that it was established in response to the racial integration of public schools. Also a lot about the history, now overwhelming the rest of the article. Is this fair? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the leads follows the cited content in the body, as encourage by MOS:LEADREL Before we can have a discussion about WP:WEIGHT, the article needs to be flushed out. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by flushed out. Are there other schools that you're editing in this way? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

By flushed out, I was referring to adding additional content about the school with citations to thrid party sources.

I added similar content to articles about other schools. If you want to have a broader discussion about coverage of racial segregation in private school articles, I think it would be best to try to reach a consensus at WP:WPSCHOOLS. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

What does the source say to support "some historians have argued that FCDS can be characterized as a segregation academy"? The source is Forsyth: the history of a county on the march. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1976. pp. 323–324 (no author given). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

History section

Looking at the first sentence of the history section, the source doesn't appear to mention Forsyth Country Day School. The second and third sentences aren't about the school and are based on a primary source from 1973 that also doesn't appear to mention Forsyth Country Day School. The fourth and fifth sentences (source) aren't really about the school either; they're about someone who sent his child to the school.

The final sentence is about the school: "Since FCDS was established in 1970 and initially enrolled almost no black students, some historians have argued that FCDS can be characterized as a segregation academy." I can't find the words "segregation academy" in the source (Forsyth: the history of a county on the march), although I can only see snippet view, which is often misleading. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

I agree that the history section has a bit to much background information. I've already pruned some content that I felt was a WP:COAT.

I think Maready's decisions about his children's schooling are relevant in that they show the school was used by political leaders as an escape hatch from busing. As far as I can tell, this tidbit is the only nontrivial mention of the school in a a wire service article.

I've returned my copy of Forsyth: the history of a county on the march and do not recall if it used the term "segregation academy". I feel that the quote from the citation amounts to a characterization of the school as a segregation academy, but I can understand how term can be seen a slur that may be have been deliberately avoided by the author. I'll concede that my use of the the phrase "argued" is a poor paraphrasing of the source's original language. I would not be opposed to removing the term and replacing it with something like "established in response to the racial integration of public schools." — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Does that source say that it was "established in response to the racial integration of public schools"? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel the source is explicit in making the connection between school integration and the establishment of FDCS. Would you suggest a different paraphrasing? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the source, so I can't suggest anything. I think you're in danger of SYN and UNDUE violations. There are no high-quality secondary sources saying exactly what you want to say. You're using primary sources; secondary sources not discussing the school; and one secondary source (not particularly high quality) that doesn't really say what you're saying. I think you should remove it all from the article until you have time to decide what to restore and how to word it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago @SarahSV: expressed some concerns about the history section. I'm responding to an email sent to Wikimedia ticket:2018073110009539 also raising those concerns. While I see some polite discussion, which is always a good sign, it looks to me like the discussion. Out without reaching a consensus.

My understanding is that Forsyth Country Day School (FCDS) is a private school, not part of public schools. the opening sentence history section explicitly talks about public schools as does the reference. The second sentence doesn't explicitly identify whether it is discussing public schools or private schools but the reference seems to make clear that it is applicable to public schools.

With regard to the last sentence of that section, on the one hand I want to apply the editor who use the little-known quote feature of citations, although I must point out that the quotation selected, while it mentions Forsyth Country Day School, it doesn't support the contention that the school could be characterized as a segregation Academy.

The penultimate sentence in the first history section paragraph is only tangentially about the school, identifying someone who sent their daughter to the school. With an enrollment of several hundred I am sure there are several hundred people whose son or daughters attended the school so the sentence tells us nothing important about the school.

I don't see any rationale for retaining any of the sentences in this section, so I am removing them.

If anyone thinks I'm missing something, please join this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)