Talk:Hammond School (South Carolina)

History is history, but it's a long time ago

Hello Billhpike -- Would it not hold with NPOV to move the Segregation academy link from the lede to History in this case? Rhadow (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think segregation academy should stay in the lead. MOS:LEAD says that "prominent controversies" should be mentioned in the lede. Whenever reliable sources write about this school, the racial issues are almost always covered in detail, so I don't think that mentioning it in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. See, for example, this 2015 Grantland article Billhpike (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Purleau1

Hello Billhpike -- Hammond is a well known private school in Columbia, SC. While some of the school's history may be in question, today's history speaks for itself. If you're going to report information on this page, report it accurately and completely. The school is no longer affiliated with anyone who was here at the school's founding. Please also include 10 years of State Championship wins, perfect SAT scores, last year's student body president who happens to be a roommate of [living person] at Harvard. Get your facts straight. Seems you are out to report about segregation only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purleau1 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources and the schools accomplishements can be added to the article. Billhpike (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for sticking up for my school I’m in my final year! I know that we have a bad history but now the life at Hammond school is amazing. It’s a great place for anybody to go to and I highly recommend it and you are right I do have always perfect SAT scores and I will be going to Yale, so please do not put Hammond‘s name in the mud Billhpike. Hi its smith (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Billhpike -- Perhaps since you are the expert, you will research THESE accomplishments in addition to those you have so grossly misrepresented! Better yet, how about call me at 999 999-9999 (edited) since you've completely blocked my attempts to moderate your misrepresentations.

I’ve done some research. For example, I’ve added notable alumni and sports championship. Unfortunately, I can’t add any of the information you’ve mentioned since I cannot locate reliable sources at the moment. IF you have any suggestions for sources, please post them here Billhpike (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Purleau1 -- Today's position does not change the past. The school's history is not "in question." Reliable references have been provided. Contributions have not shown WP:UNDUE weight
  • "Germany is a well known country in Europe. While some of the nation's history may be questionable, today's history speaks for itself."
  • "Garrison Keillor is a well-known performer. While some of his antics ..."

And so on, ad infinitum. Your argument does not hold up. WP is an encyclopedia, not a promotion platform. You are free to add text about 10 years of State Championship wins, perfect SAT scores, (and) last year's student body president who happens to be a roommate of [living person] at Harvard ... with references. Rhadow (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Actually, the SAT bit might be appropriate with an independent source, but discussion of an individual student who is not notable would be outside the content guidelines for school articles and any claim to notability would likely be WP:INHERIT. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Time for page protection

• Skyhawk99 is a WP:SPA, deleting substantial portions of the article.
• Billhpike is a substantial contributor to this page and dozens more like it. Into this article, the editor has added non-controversial text including the history of the school's athletics and notable alumni. A review will show a reasonable balance of topics added, without WP:UNDUE weight. Edits have been accompanied by citations.
• Purleau1 is also a WP:SPA. He or she added a citation, which page is not available over the Internet. The TOC indicates a ten-page chapter about Hammond. At the same time the editor blanked more than half the article.

Since then an edit war ensues. Rhadow (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• SouthernSeg, another SPA, has joined the fray. Hello Billhpike (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to do a WP:SPI Billhpike (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t want to edit war, so I’m holding off on reverting SouthernSeg’s whitewash Billhpike (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

More Comments by Purleau1

Hello Billhpike Hello Hello Billhpike If you are going to research Hammond School, you need to research it thoroughly, and not just entries you feel justified including. We have rallied our alumni, student, and parent base to continue this fray until it is rectified. You are welcome to contact me at <<redacted>> for further information.

Comment Please consider not posting your phone number. See Wikipedia:Privacy Billhpike (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

INcredibly inappropriate to phone anyone for information. We do not source from phone calls. We use WP:reliable sources not connected with the subject. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTBATTLE Billhpike (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Purleau1 (talk · contribs) for the suggestion. I've added more information on the campus, diversity scholarships, and present demographics.Billhpike (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

change James H Hammonds's "name

to James H Hammond's "name 82.30.110.20 (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Done John from Idegon (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture

I think we should include a picture of James Henry Hammond on the page. The controversy associated with the use of his name is discussed in the article and in several reliable sources. The picture serves to call out facts discussed in the history section. Billhpike (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Illustrations are used to explain things in a way words cannot. How does knowing what he looked like explain anything about the school? Absolutely his only connection to this school is that it was named for him. The fact that he was a Confederate leader should be more than enough to convey that he was white, which arguably could be important (very marginally) to the school's history as a segregation academy, but his name (which again is the only connection to the school) is wikilinked for those wishing to know more about him. And the exact same picture leads his bio. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add, that although precedent doesn't count for much here, names are purely cosmetic. Than can be and are changed all the time. Look to all the school name changes after the death's of the Kennedy's and Dr. King. Point being that we generally don't discuss much beyond the historic context of the name unless the namesake has a direct connection to the school (founder, former staff, alumni), and in those cases, knowledge of the namesake is directly relevant to the accumulated knowledge of the school. John from Idegon (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that is one of the cases where knowledge of the namesake is relevant to the accumulated knowledge of the school. Nevertheless, I’ll concede the current style guidelines discourage images in situations like this one. I think MOS:IMAGES should be updated to allow for the use of images to callout facts, but that is a discussion for another place. If you think the image should be removed, please remove it. I will only restore if a different consensus emerges on a MOS talk page. Billhpike (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would actually support the image in this case. While I generally agree with John from Idegon's point about other articles not including these images, I don't think the examples of King or Kennedy (or any other major national figure) are particularly apt. Those are widely-known historical figures who were prominent in U.S. history and whose reputations/lives are generally well known. Beyond that, though, Kennedy and King and various other presidents/leaders/"heroes" of American history have been frequently adopted by schools where the individual has no connection to or real bearing on the school; in this case, the selection of Hammond is closely tied to the school's purpose and identity, and his selection was meant to send a deliberate message. While it's true that the historical personage of Hammond isn't connected to the school, his selection is clearly linked to it in a way that King/Kennedy are not necessarily linked to schools named after them. Given that, I would lean toward keeping the picture in the article. Grandpallama (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Grandpallama, thanks for being here. Voices are definitely needed in this discussion. What I see as the problem with including a picture of a man whose only connection to the school is its name is more a WP:WEIGHT issue than anything. It serves to focus the article too closely on the segregation academy origins. Granted he isn't well known. Neither are William Wirt, Horace Mann or Loy Norrix, three other men whim I can think of off the top of my head that have had schools named after them. But I still do not see how an illustration of any of those people would serve to inform readers about the schools that were named after them. In this article's case, not only does an illustration of the namesake not serve to inform about the school in any way, it also draws the reader's eye to the historical information on why it was chosen. That puts undue emphasis on it. On this, I think Rhadow has a point below. We need to provide balance between what was and what is. The image in question skews that. What this article really needs is a contemporary illustration of its campus. John from Idegon (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if not for the segregation history of this school, how notable would it be? That seems to be its key (maybe even sole) point of notability for its inclusion on Wikipedia. The other mentions of it in the sources (supporting its demographics, etc.) would not on their own make it particularly notable. If there were multiple significant points of notability, I think I'd give the WP:WEIGHT argument more credence, but it seems hard to unduly focus on the point that is itself the justification for the entry. That said, I'm weakly in favor of the image, not arguing for it strenuously. Grandpallama (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the article on Hopper College has an extended discussion of the controversy surrounding the name, but the article does not include an image of John C Calhoun or Grace Hopper. Billhpike (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's very true. Again, there's a lot more to say about Hopper than there is (at least so far) about Hammond. The controversy is thus far the only notable thing I see about Hammond, which makes the linkage of the image more relevant. Also again, I'm only weakly in favor of its inclusion. Grandpallama (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A history of AfDs shows that high schools are assumed to be notable, whether or not is a run-of-the-mill school. This one would be in either way. The controversial item clearly pushes it (and others) into notability. Rhadow (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Scholarships

I removed this section for sourcing. Sorry, but more than a tax form is needed for a source here. Except for absolutely undisputable info, secondary sources need to exist for all information in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I will add back if / when I can find a better source.Billhpike (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for help finding a secondary source at WP:Reference desk/Humanities Billhpike (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This article has turned out to be a test case for a hundred similar articles. The people associated with the other schools have apparently been unaware of the article about their schools, or have chosen to ignore the WP article altogether. As regards the amount of scholarships, I believe that a tax form is absolutely indisputable and therefore acceptable. WHY the school offers these scholarships is a matter of WP:Synthesis and would require a secondary source. The headmaster of the school jumped in. I agree that his direct involvement in editing is inappropriate. His observation that history is history has a point. The question for us is whether the school's history is one of the top three points that belong in the lede. The damning details belong in the History section. To delete them altogether is not encyclopedic. Some of these segregation academies have taken positive steps. Hammond is one. Others have quietly continued to accept a student body that looks nothing, demographically, like the surrounding communities. Let us continue the discussion here. When we have a consensus, we can apply it to other contentious articles. Rhadow (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Tax forms are primary sources, disputable or not. And "history is history" isn't a point, it's a tautology masquerading as a deeper point being used by a COI editor to whitewash material he doesn't like from the page. A lede's purpose, in part, is to summarize reasons why an article's subject is notable, "including any prominent controversies." The discussion of the school's past in this case occurs primarily in the body of the article, but its mention in the lede is entirely appropriate; whether the school has "taken positive steps" bears no relevance on what is covered in the lede (although there is equivocal language about the Hammond school being "now better known for"). I don't see how that's even up for discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

So, Grandpallama, your position is that segregation academy is mentioned in the lede and explanatory text in History. In my opinion, the best articles of the series have a contemporaneous quote. Rhadow (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Whomever changed the very appropriate and neutral header of this section, don't do that again. Rhadow, we are not discussing a series of articles, we are discussing this one. This particular section deals with whether to include info on current scholarships based solely on the school's 990. It isn't about the lede, it certainly isn't about who else has edited the article and it isn't about any other articles but this one. Please try to keep your comments on point. If you want to discuss the lede, start a separate section. If you wish to attempt to set some sort of precedent, an RfC would be the proper tool and either WT:WPSCH or the village pump would be the proper venue. John from Idegon (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which version of the lede was very appropriate and neutral. As to the Form 990 number, I stand by my assertion that the number itself is not a matter of argument, but its context may be. For that, I agree, a secondary source is appropriate. Rhadow (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The article includes secondary sources as the fact and motivation of the scholarships in the late 1980s, but not as to the present number of recipients or the current dollar amount. I used the 990 for the current figures. Billhpike (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Refactoring this to make it readable. Please don't switch from indents to bullets and back again within the same conversation. Grandpallama (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

College scholarships

It is now common for schools to report the total amount of scholarships offered to members of a recent graduating class. This assertion is currently edited out of this article. If it reappears, I suggest that it be edited out. The definition of scholarships offered is a matter of debate. In any case, it is almost impossible to confirm, whether it is mentioned in a secondary source or not. It was a number tallied by a school administrator and may be a reflection of the families' economic situations as much as academic achievement. Rhadow (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Altho content about scholarships offered does appear in many school articles, it shouldn't. Merit scholarships are achievement of the individual students receiving them, not the school, and are hence off topic. Scholarships awarded through or by the school are virtually unverifiable, are marketing oriented and really are not differentiating in any meangful mannor. Almost all schools, public or private, have some scholarship endowments they administrator. It's clearly content that serves more to promote than inform. John from Idegon (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Most college scholarships are not funded out of endowment revenue, but instead from forgone tuition revenue. Such scholarships are effectively a marketing tool for the college. We shouldn’t report such totals, just like we wouldn’t report on total number of blue light specials purchased by the school’s students. On the other hand, if the school received a large number of national merit scholarships and the number was reported by reliable sources, I would favor mentioning it. (retroactive signature) Billhpike (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"College scholarships are not funded out of endowment revenue, but instead from forgone tuition revenue." That reminds me of an old saying, "Same khaki pants, different pockets." If I were a school promoter, here is how I would have my guidance counselor calculate college scholarships: Billie was accepted to five schools who offered her $20,000 in grants each. They are four year schools, so I multiply by four. Her total is $400,000. Tally for the recently graduated class, and I get get a total of $8.5 million. I mention it to a reporter and viola, my school is full of geniuses. Rhadow (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rhadow = Your statement regarding scholarship monies is inaccurate. How well a school prepares a student to successfully compete for scholarship monies and placement in top colleges and universities is the single strongest indicator of the quality of education being received at any particular institution of learning. Applications from students who attend schools with reputations for rigorous academic preparation are recognized, and rewarded by colleges and universities. Within the pool of applicants, secondary schools will look more favorably on graduates from certain schools. All things equal, it is quite similar to a job applicant with a degree from Harvard being selected over a job applicant with a degree from the University of Tennessee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilsonJB (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello WilsonJB -- I don't argue that "placement in top colleges and universities is the single strongest indicator of the quality of education being received at any particular" high school. I contend, however, that the amount of grant aid offered to any potential matriculant is a private matter between the college and the family. Any attempt to quantify it is likely to lead to exaggeration and is impossible to verify. Rhadow (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It is important to remember that the top American universities do no offer merit scholarships — all aid is on the basis of financial need. As such, for schools sending students to top universities, scholarship totals reflect the economic diversity of the school, not the academic accomplishments of its students. Billhpike (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeh, true, well ... the admissions department and the financial aid office will work just a little harder to get a good package to a star running back or a kid who is likely to go on to a Fulbright. One might argue that ANY grant at Harvard is a merit scholarship. Rhadow (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Per school article guidelines, we do not discuss schools that students matriculated to. As Rhadow mentioned, scholarship distribution is not generally a matter of public discussion. Unless reliable independent sources (and I mean completely academically independent) can be provided on the scholarships issued by the school, this discussion is moot. This article is not here to serve as a publicity vehicle for the subject of it–period. If you've got decent sources, bring them to the table. If not, I'd say we are done on this subject. John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional information

In comparison to other Wiki pages for similar schools in Columbia, and indeed, South Carolina, this page does appear biased. Take for instance Heathwood Hall Episcopal School ... more of a promotional page than informational. Likewise for Ben Lippen.

Coach Erik Kimrey is the youngest coach to achieve 100 football wins; Early Technology Week was developed by Hammond School and serves as a model for schools across the country who choose to incorporate experiential learning in their curriculum; Hammond students were named recipients of community service award by Central Carolina Community Foundation.

See articles below:

http://www.thestate.com/latest-news/article14367929.html http://www.thestate.com/search/?order=ASC&page=11&q=Hammond+School&sort=publishdate http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article14385830.html http://www.thestate.com/sports/high-school/article14392553.html http://www.thestate.com/sports/high-school/article14412557.html

Statement that mascot was changed from Rebels to Skyhawks is an inaccurate statement from Paul Wachter article. Rebels were mascot of now defunct Robert E. Lee Academy. Hammond has always had Skyhawks as mascot, JV teams were initially Eagles, never Rebels.WilsonJB (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these sources and welcome to Wikipedia. See WP:SCH/AG for information about what we generally include in school articles.

I use the article on Kimrey to add the six consecutive championships. I didn’t add Kimrey’s record time to 100 wins since I couldn’t find the result vs Pinewood Prep in 2012. (See WP:CRYSTAL)

Dana Beach may be notable, but we shouldn’t mention her in this article until she has her own Wikipedia article. See WP:WTAF

I added a short blurb about the farm being used for equestrian events.

The technology based learning program may be notable, but the article in The State cannot be used since it is a guest opinion piece. See WP:NEWSORG

I removed the reference to the Rebels mascot since I found a few sources that supported your claim. Billhpike (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the articles for the Heathwood Hall School and the Ben Lippen School. I removed some content sections that violated WP:BOOSTER. I also added a brief discussion of racial integration at Heathwood Hall school. Billhpike (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What is in or isn't in other articles has no relevance here. This article stands entirely on its own, just as all other Wikipedia articles do. Achievements of individual staff or students are totally irrelevant per school article guidelines. If an individual staff member (or student) is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia biography, we will not even mention their name. Being the youngest high school coach in the WORLD to achieve 100 victories would not in and of itself be enough to qualify an individual for a biography. WilsonJB, are you in any way connected to the school? (Staff, alumni, contracted to do a service such as but not limited to publicity or public relations) John from Idegon (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello user:John from Idegon, I'm not connected to the school, but am affiliated with the State Department of Education and have taught education classes. The history and state of schools in South Carolina have always been an interest of mine. I have watched the ebb and flow of independent schools and the public school system for a good many years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilsonJB (talk • contribs)

Should information about the school's name be censored?

An editor has removed reliably sourced information about the school's name, which was chosen at the time the school opened as a segregation academy, strangely calling it puffery. Should this information be censored because the school now finds it unflattering? Jacona (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors may find it helpful to review the comments in the 'History is history, but it's a long time ago' discussion above from 2017. Gab4gab (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The previous article headline featured charged language that violates. MOS: PUFFERY. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS:PUFFERY&redirect=no. It's fair to mention that the founder has controversy surrounding him but talking about "brutal rape" is very clearly not a neutral point of view. This is not an article about the founder but about a school that, from my research, currently exists. It could be fair to include that in the history section but it obviously isn't needed in the header. The page on Henry Ford mentions his anti-Semitic past but does not go into detail in the header. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford. Volkswagen's header doesn't even mention that it was started by Hitler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen. I don't really care if the school finds it flattering or not but mentioning "brutal rape" in the header is charged content. Editing leef (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If someone described consensual sex as "brutal rape", that would indeed be a none-neutral point of view. On the other hand, if a man has non-consensual sex with his four under-age nieces, omitting that, or describing it as "nice rape" or some such, would be non-neutral. This man raped many underage women, most of whom he was related to. It's not only well-sourced, he himself freely admitted it. He was known to have repeatedly raped two female slaves, one of whom may have been his own daughter and who was 12 years old when he started raping her. This was likely the reason he was chosen as the namesake of a school that was founded to prolong racial segregation. How would you describe a rape of a 12 year old? Seems pretty brutal to me, as it did to the sources provided who titled the book "Monster of all he surveyed." Jacona (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that he was evil or that rape is brutal, but a less emotionally charged approach would be to say sexual assault. In addition, going in depth to the founders actions 140 years ago in the header isn't really relevant to a school that is operational today. Articles about the Ford Motor Company and Volkwagen do not mention their anti-Semetic and Nazi connections in the headers of the articles. This is because the modern day companies are removed from their founders, even though their founders were just as evil or more so as James Hammond. Can you please explain how Hammond School is different and why it should receive different treatment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company Can you also please provide evidence that the modern day school promotes the actions of the founder in its curriculum? Editing leef (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It is explained above, by myself as well as others in previous discussions. Please read and explain why you think the previous consensus should be changed.Jacona (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I will repeat, this school was founded for the purpose of discriminating against black people. They chose to name it for a man who was famous for raping his 18 year old black slave, and then her (and probably his) 12 year old daughter. It's not insignificant that they chose, when founding their school to discriminate against black people, a man who was famous for raping black children. Unlike Ford Motor, which was named for it's owner, the organizers could have named it for anyone, but they chose to name it for a long-dead man who brutally oppressed black people, while they created an organization to discriminate against black people. It is really a defining characteristic of this organizations origin. Jacona (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed the school's demographics and I'm not seeing that they discriminate against black people today, can you please provide a source for that? Not just first party research. Ford Motor and VW both continue to use the racist names they were founded with and could have changed them at any point over the past 80 years and yet they have not. How is that better? Other brands have changed their names such as Aunt Jemima. So please explain how Hammond School's header should continue explicit details of its founder while VW's header does not contain explicit details about the holocaust. This is not consistent with other pages on the encyclopedia. Editing leef (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You're making a false equivalence. Ford was founded to make cars, he named the company after himself. His descendants still retain control over the company. This school was founded to discriminate against black people, and they chose to name it after a man who raped a 12 year old black girl. They really made a statement, didn't they? Jacona (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a false equivalence because the modern school teaches kids just as Ford and VW makes cars. In addition, Ford did not only exist to sell cars they also provided pamphlets with each car sold containing anti-Semitic propaganda, so the company existed in part to further Ford's goals. In fact, there is NO reference in the page to Ford's Newspaper "The Dearborn Independent" and how every Ford dealership nationwide was required to distribute copies to their customers explaining The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If there is no reference to this egregious racism on the part of Ford Motor Co it simply does not make sense that Hammond is somehow different. I have found no evidence that Hammond discriminants against black people and you have provided no evidence that they do. Again, I would like for you to show me how their curriculum teaches the beliefs of James Hammond or provide proof that they turn down black applicants. We must be objective and stay within the realm of facts or we risk overreaching. If Hammond IS teaching racist propaganda then that should be included in detail within the article. Editing leef (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about the text in the lead that addresses the school being named after James Hammond. Editing leef claims that it is a violation of the MOS to use the term "brutal rape". This seems a simple issue to address, however that term has not been used. If reliable sources widely describe Hammond as a brutal slave holder it's acceptable to say that here per WP:LABEL. The State describes him this way: "...he was a brutal slave owner, but also an admitted pedophile and sexual abuser." Gab4gab (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion currently is about whether or not that belongs in the header. I brought the sentence back and shifted it to the history section where it makes more sense. Jacona brought the sentence back to the header. The standard for other pages is to go into details in the history section and give a broad overview in the header. Jacona's argument seems to be that because he believes the school is currently racist, the details of the founders actions should be in the header. However he has provided no information substantiating that.Editing leef (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if they're racist now or not, and that isn't particularly relevant. The school was founded to discriminate, it was named after a man who raped a 12 year old black girl, among others. That is worthy of mention in the lede, in some form or another.Jacona (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In some form or another, ok. So keep the link and part about enduring controversy. Then go into detail in the history section. I think that's fair. Editing leef (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep editing the article to your preferred version before a consensus is reached here? Gab4gab (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I just took Jacona's opinion and my own and tried to find a compromise between us. Trying to see what that looks like but definitely want to hear thoughts from all sides. Editing leef (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe the procedure should be to reach consensus here before revising the article. Editors are able to propose revisions on the talk page and then after agreement revise the article. Gab4gab (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Since the discussion has drawn a lot of attention, the reasons for criticizing the name should be mentioned in the lead section. And, of course, we should give our readers the right idea. "Proponent of slavery" might be understood as some professor having some odd theories. A man who actually rapes enslaved children as well as his not-enslaved nieces - that's something different. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The lead on the Ford Motor company does not mention that the company was required to distribute anti-Semitic newspapers and pamphlets. Other pages for companies with controversial pasts follow the same guidelines. I think it is appropriate to discuss the evil actions of the founder in the history section. However the lead in no other page I was able to find goes in depth to the founders actions. The lead for Volkswagen does not mention how many people died during the holocaust. Please explain why this company should receive different treatment than a company that was founded by Adolf Hitler. Editing leef (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The lede for Volkswagen mentions Hitler's involvement in the very first sentence. It seems reasonable to me to assume that most readers already know the kind of "enduring controversy" Hitler created. Do you disagree?Jacona (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As Billhpike mentioned during a related discussion in 2017: MOS:LEAD says that "prominent controversies" should be mentioned in the lede. Wikipedia guidelines are more useful here than examples from other articles. Gab4gab (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that the school's name is a "prominent controversy". I could only find one article about contemporary efforts to rename the school, [1]. This article does not imply the existence of organized opposition to the school's name, it just quotes "some" alumni who want the school to be renamed. ([2] may also cover renaming efforts but I cannot access it).

In the case that the school's name is not a "prominent controversy", Hammond's status as a prominent pro-slavery statesman should be should still be covered in the lead to provide historical background, but his rapes of his nieces is beyond the scope of this article's lead. userdude 21:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC); edited 22:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

James Henry Hammond and slavery

I don't think it's appropriate for this article with the extant sourcing, but wow. Here's what Hammond said about slavery: "Slavery is said to be an evil… But is no evil. On the contrary, I believe it to be the greatest of all the great blessings which a kind Providence has bestowed upon our glorious region… As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth… Lightly tasked, well clothed, well fed—far better than the free laborers of any country in the world,… their lives and persons protected by the law, all their sufferings alleviated by the kindest and most interested care...". The more research, the more the choice of Hammond for the name of a segregation school seems extreme even among extremists.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Slavery as a positive good was propagated by John C. Calhoun, and Jefferson Davis expressed similar nonsense more than 20 years after Emancipation. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Notable Alum and Perfect SAT Scores

"Life at 1600 SAT Avenue" - The State Newspaper, Saturday, February 3, 2001 (Siblings James and Catherine Mack - perfect SAT scores)

Jordan Burch - Jordan Burch (2020 Alum) https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/sports/college/usc/2020/02/05/hometown-5-star-jordan-burch-sticks-south-carolina-gamecock-football-national-signing-day/4669819002/ Jeanmorrisf (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)