Talk:Highlands Latin School

Primary sources

This article is currently sourced only to the website of the school in question. The primary sources tag is therefore appropriate but was reverted without explanation shortly after I put it on. Please discuss, or better still, find some reliable sources for the article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No discussion, so I'm restoring the tag. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And again. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Louisville,_Kentucky Check every school page on this list. For enrollment, test scores, etc., the school's website is the only reliable source because the school is the only source of this information. Why so much focus on the short statistical and historical information from this one school when you have so many on that list with pages of claims without citation. In fact, I essentially copied the first line from Collegiate on the last post and you edited it here but not there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.82.130 (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. We are discussing this article and it seems that you agree that this article currently depends on primary sources. The tag is therefore appropriate. Please do not remove it unless and until there are reliable secondary or tertiary sources available for the information. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added two secondary sources. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editors

I'm concerned about the number of anonymous IP editors who are contributing to this article. While there is indeed no requirement to obtain an account to edit Wikipedia, the plethora of different IP addresses tends to obscure the number of people contributing to the discussion of various points on this page. It would be helpful if major contributors would acquire a username. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Memoria Press

This reference -- John R. Karman III, "Highlands Latin School buys expansion site for $3.9 million", Business First Louisville, 19 March 2010 -- states "Highlands Latin operates as a subsidiary of Memoria Press Inc., a textbook publishing company owned by Lowe and her family." Presumably Business First is a reliable source. 74.143.34.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed this with the edit summary Highlands Latin is not subsidiary of Memoria Press - sec of state. Firstly I note that the source and the material I added does not state that it is a subsidiary, but that it is operated as a subsidiary. Secondly, I note that this is verified but the removal is not explained. Is 74.143.34.34 claiming to be the Secretary of State of Kentucky, or to have consulted them? Is there another source correcting or contradicting the one I used? In the absence of adequate explanation, removing well-sourced material can be seen as disruptive. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Unclear how it could operate as a subsidiary but not be a subsidiary. The definitive source of subsidiaries is the Secretary of State for Kentucky. No need to consult them. It is all public record. Highlands Latin is listed as a separate entity and not a subsidiary of Memoria Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.202.216 (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is a public record, then it can be cited. Are you able to do so? Until then, we have a reliable source for the assertion. Incidentally, is 74.138.202.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the same person as 74.143.34.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) here? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Followup:

• [1] "Memoria Press authors develop and teach their courses in Highlands Latin School classrooms."
• [2] : "By far the most influential in our decisions is Memoria Press and Highlands Latin School. These are essentially one organization. One half is an actual school and the other half is a publisher."

Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

74.138.202.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) comments that "Operated in conjunction is ambiguous and not clearly supported. Reworded to match the souce which refers to books being developed by teachers at school." It seems a reasonable summary of the reliably sourced "Highlands Latin operates as a subsidiary of Memoria Press Inc." and the self-published "Memoria Press authors develop and teach their courses in Highlands Latin School classrooms." I do not see why they wish to soften the connection. Do they have a stake in this? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Of all the information in the articles you cite, why spend all your time trying to add this with just your preferred wording. Both Highlands Latin and Memoria Press have pages that say that 1. Many Highlands Latin teachers write textbooks for Memoria Press http://thelatinschool.org/publishing and 2. Many Memoria Press authors teach at Highlands Latin http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/highlandshist.html depending on which site you are on since they are both written from the perspective of the institution that wrote the page. It is pretty clear and part of the marketing for the school. In 4 lines of information on the school, is it the most important or helpful piece of information for most people who will be coming to this site, probably not, but you seem to want it there very badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.202.216 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_Collegiate_School about 100 lines with onl 1 citation (to school's website) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Country_Day_School about 100 lines with 1 citation (external) Now they seem very informative and I don't have a problem with them, but I am sure that since you are independent, you will find it important to clean up these Louisville school pages before you work on the 4 lines on this page. If not, would you like to declare some connection or motivation in regards to Highlands Latin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.202.216 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no hestitation in stating categorically that I have no connection with the subject of this article or any similar or competing organisation; that I do not live or work on the same continent; and that I am quite satisfied in my own mind that I have no conflict of interest. I note that the anonymous IP editor(s) have failed to make a similar disclaimer of interest even though they have been asked to do so on several occasions. I am concerned that this article is being systematically edited by those anoymous IP editors to promote a particular positive view of this organisation, and furthermore that those IP addresses geolocate to the town of Louisville, Kentucky.

The arguments about other articles equally needing work apply rather more strongly to the anonymous editor(s) whose contributions records clearly show them to be single purpose accounts, which has usually been regarded as a warning sign on Wikipedia. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another anonymous editor 174.141.82.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has continued the campaign of 74.138.202.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to remove the quote "Highlands Latin operates as a subsidiary of Memoria Press Inc., a textbook publishing company owned by Lowe and her family." which is sourced to Business First of Louisville, on the grounds that it "didn't really speak to teachers writing book. Better citation in other article." Well, it does speak to the relationship between the two organisations, and does so more effectively than the "other article". Why are there persistent attempts to soften the commentary on this relationship emanating from a the same geographical area as these companies? Are these anonymous editors connected? Is there a conflict of interest at work here? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This quote is inaccurate and doesn't speak to teachers writing books. Why insist on including the single inaccuracy in an article. Reporters can make mistakes and this happens to be one. It is not an attempt to hide the connection between Memoria Press and Highlands Latin. That is something they both advertise clearly on their websites. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia from repeating an inaccuracy. If you don't have a connection to the school and don't know anything about it, try fact checking this statement through another source before insisting on including it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.202.216 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is at odds with how Wikipedia works. The quote is accurate, in the sense that it is reliably quoted from the source cited. It is relevant to the business relationship between the organisation which is the subject of the article and another company. We report what reliable sources say -- we do not include what anonymous people claim. Does 74.138.202.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) claims personal knowledge of arrangements at this school? If so, they probably have a conflict of interest -- a question which they have been avoiding answering for some months now. Edit warring to remove a quotation just because you don't like it is disruption. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

After this unexplained revert by 74.138.202.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I'm requesting a third opinion. I believe that there is only one editor behind the various anonymous IP addresses. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Coming here as a result of WP:3O. The information Kenilworth Terrace has inserted about the school's operations as a subsidiary of a textbook company are properly sourced and properly described. The anon has failed to provide any sources to the contrary and so I must support Kenilworth Terrace's position. If the anon wishes to contest the information in any useful sense, a source must be provided that shows something to the contrary. Even then, the appropriate answer would be to add to Kenilworth Terrace's edit, not to erase it. Where reliable sources conflict with one another, we summarize that conflict within the article (source A says X, but source B says Y). Wikipedia functions on a standard of verifiability, not truth, so please keep that in mind: we aren't here to pass judgment on the truth or falseness of what exists in a reliable source, but rather to faithfully summarize it, as long as it complies with our other core policies here.—e. ripley\^talk 16:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for such a prompt and helpful response. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Quick Radical Rewrite with POV"?

A team of anonymous editors who have only edited this page, or a single editor using multiple IPs, Renwalsh, 74.128.227.30, and 107.77.68.55 have repeatedly rolled back edits I have made on this page, stating I have a "radical" POV. Rather than continue the edit war, I would like to resolve the issue here. All I did was add additional information about the for-profit nature of the school (a well sourced fact, as this is how the Kentucky Secretary of state lists the school) and remove advertisement-like talking points such as "The three universal languages of Math, Latin, and Music" and "the need Latin and Roman history to understand American History". In my edits, I have used more neutral phrasing such as "education based on the belief that Latin and Roman history..." rather than the unsourced assertion that these things are absolutely the case. I would like to hear why Renwalsh believes I am "pushing" a "radical POV". Cheers. --Josephine54 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no relation to these other editors and I don't think you're engaged in "radical POV", but I do take minor issue with the for-profit categorization for the simple reason that it's not a well-populated category and therefore it gives the appearance that this school is being singled out in a way that may be perceived to be negative. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I went ahead and removed it since it was kind of ridiculous that there were basically no other schools in that category! --Josephine54 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Gracias! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is quick radical rewrite pushing a POV, not radical POV. This page has a history of new wikipedia users coming in and editing only this page (and no others) pushing a negative POV, often ending with vandalism. I am not saying you are the same person every time, but you are clearly editing with a POV. You deleted SAT, ACT and class size information which are included parameters in Template:Infobox_school and tried to add a forprofit tag which is not widely used, indicating triviality. Using an "alternative account' to edit a page that should not be controversial is also concerning. I agree that "universal languages" is too much marketing speak and should not be included. No need for an edit war. This page just shouldn't be marketing for or against the school. Renwalsh (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You yourself are a new user, so I'm not sure why you're worried that I'm using a new account. Ultimately the age of our accounts doesn't really matter though. I have already removed the "for profit" categorization because it was totally unused and it was silly of me to put it there without checking if it was used. However, I'm unsure why you would remove it from the article itself, since it's a relevant and true piece of information regardless of how people perceive it. I don't have a problem with for-profit education, I just thought it was an interesting and highly relevant piece of information to include.

I never removed class size info, just wanted a source, which we now have. As for SAT and ACT, I checked some other schools but did not find any "featured" or "good" article about a school that includes this information, so I removed it. I assumed it was included by whoever wrote the article as an advertisement in the first place with things like laundry lists of schools the graduating class was accepted to. I have since rechecked Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Featured_articles and discovered that out of all featured school articles, only one has these scores and it sources a third party source. If you could find a source that is not advertising material from the school, I would be happy to include the info. Or if a third party like @Stevietheman: thinks I'm being overly cautious here.

For now I'm reverting the article to the previous version, partly because this issue is unresolved and at the moment you are the only one supporting your version of the article, but largely because you removed the NPOV tag (which you need to leave until we resolve this) and removed a large amount of information such as the fact that the school is a subsidiary of Memoria Press. If you still disagree with my changes and want a third opinion, check out here: Wikipedia:Third opinion. Cheers. --Josephine54 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a major problem with the scores as long as they have third-party/government sources, although that kind of information is fleeting and has to be continually maintained. I also agree the subsidiary info is key and should stay. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the POV is in dispute without the "universal languages". The subsidiary info is not accurate. When I followed the secretary of state link you posted, Memoria Press is not listed as a member of Highlands Latin School so it can't be a subsidiary. It appears that it was a part of Memoria Press 5 years ago, and you have found old articles to cite instead of the secretary of state. I could accept that Highlands Latin school started as a part of Memoria Press or Memoria Press started from Highlands Latin School, whichever is accurate but I don't think this is really relevant and the current connection to Memoria Press is already listed in the wikipedia article.

The article already lists that Highlands Latin School is family owned. You want to re-write it as the most important part of the page in the first line. Corporate structure is relatively trivial information for a school which is why it isn't in Template:Infobox_school.

You are also trying to rewrite "Highlands Latin School Indianapolis is a sister school located in Carmel, Indiana, just north of Indianapolis." to your phrasing of "The school operates an independent branch in Indiana known as Highlands Latin School Indianapolis." The only reason I can think to try to make this change is because the latter has a more corporate and negative tone. You have not provided a citation for your statement and sister school is the appropriate term to use based on the wikipedia definition of sister school

You did remove class size with your first edit when you rewrote the entire page.

Visit St._Xavier_High_School_(Louisville) or any other school page in Louisville. It says "St. X has the most successful athletic program in Kentucky, having won 176 boys' state championships." with no citation, along with about 3 other pages of advertising. (Note that they also have ACT and SAT, and class size without citation.) That is perfectly fine and what you would expect with a school page. It is odd that you let that go, but are questioning a citation for "universal languages" on this page. Until you bring the other school pages up to half the encyclopedic value of this one, you are singling this school out to push your particular POV. Renwalsh (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't edit every single wiki page at once. Once we resolve this issue I'll be more than happy to go work on St. Xavier. I'm totally fine if you reword things: use the term sister school, by all means! Just don't rollback every single change I made, don't remove perfectly valid information, and absolutely do not remove the NPOV tag. There are a couple of issues here. One, you're not assuming good faith, you're accusing me of pushing a view that is opposed to Highlands Latin School, when I am not at all opposed to Highlands Latin. I found the article as little more than a brochure advertisement, and I'm trying to turn that around. Furthermore, you need to stop removing the NPOV tag. Just because you have a strong opinion does not mean that the dispute is over just because you're declaring it to be so. I'm perfectly 100% fine if you edit the article: by all means, add test scores if you find a reliable source, use the term "sister school" if you think my wording is corporate sounding or whatever.

As for Memoria Press, this issue was resolved earlier on this talk page. See the discussion with user:Kenilworth_Terrace above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephine54 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

EDIT After looking through the history of this article and seeing that information like this has been removed in the past by anonymous rollbacks, I have filed a sockpuppet investigation. --Josephine54 (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It was settled with Kenilworth_Terrace until you provided a new definitive link to the secretary of state which contradicts the article. https://app.sos.ky.gov/ftshow/(S(4tp2cjugngkl5j3aosl2qg3d))/default.aspx?path=ftsearch&id=0672405&ct=06&cs=9999. Memoria Press is not a member and you can also see where they were the same entity at one time but are now separate. You're are using an alternative account as a good faith "neutral" editor trying to clean up a brochure-like page. This violates wp policy on legitimate use of an alternate account Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Alternative_account_notification. Please provide alternative account notification.

I believe a sock puppet has multiple accounts. I did not have an account but do now. That is not sock puppetry. Renwalsh (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No matter what article we are talking about, advertising should be challenged (with the {{advert}} tag or removed. Also, test scores are not notable unless they have third-party or government references. Self-reporting from the school is unreliable. And if there's no third-party/government sources providing the info, it's not notable (no matter what the infobox template provides for). As for corporate attachments or for-profit status, if it's factual and can be backed up, it is fair for going into the article, but probably not the lead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about Renwalsh

user:Renwalsh has continued to try to turn this article into an advertisement, listing, for example, the universities that students have recently been accepted to. Some things might be okay, such as national merit information, if it was adequately cited. Renwalsh has cited an article, http://insiderlouisville.com/metro/education-community/one-300-million-odds-almost-half-highlands-latin-school-seniors-recognized-national-merit-semi-finalists/ alleging that 7/16 national merit recognition has a 1/300,000,000 odds of happening. If you read that article, the statistic clearly comes from a school press release. I've written to the author of that article asking for the calculations that lead to a 1/300,000,000 chance (which seems impossibly high) and received no response. The school does not publish the calculations that lead to that statistic, as far as I know. As such we have no way of verifying it (I question the school's reliability on this issue partially because the school has pretty obviously been trying to turn this Wikipedia page into an advertisement) the information should be left out. Include the number of merit scholars in the class, just not the made up statistic.

Furthermore, Renwalsh has repeatedly gone against the consensus on whether the school is a subsidiary of Memoria Press. We've hashed this issue out before, and we all agree that the school is functionally a subsidiary of Memoria. I warned him about his repeated spam previously, and he disappeared for about three months. Then he pops up again and starts doing the exact same thing as before. His account was created during the previous controversy, and he's only ever edited this article. He's very obviously acting as an agent of the school and trying to use this article as an advertisement for the school.

• Renwalsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1. Only actions taken on account are on a single article, turning it into an advertisement; 2. Repeatedly ignored consensus; 3. Disappeared when warned, reappeared months later to continue behavior. DrCruse (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly there is a content dispute here, but I don't think that means we should use an article talk page to cast heavy aspersions on a user. Yes, there is a concern that Renwalsh is likely an agent for this school, but that doesn't mean that they can't be involved with this article. But it may mean they need to stop directly editing the article itself due to conflict of interest.

As for the quality of references, normally Insider Louisville does quality journalism, but the piece in question does appear to fall well short of journalistic standards. I'm OK with any dubious content based on it being scrubbed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

DrCruse 1 in 300,000,000 is not really necessary for the article so I am happy to drop it. I don't think the link is dubious about 7 National Merits. There is an actual picture of the students there, and it is published by a reliable source. You can look up the information from National Merit if you doubt the validity of Insider Louisville. Marking this as dubious is incorrect. It does not meet any of the requirements in Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement - dubious.

The subsidiary issue is not settled because there is new information. You brought to light a new 2015 citation from the authoritative source, the KY Secretary of State, that contradicts the 5 year old article. Highlands Latin is definitively not a subsidiary of Memoria Press since Memoria Press is not a member. The article you cite said Highlands Latin operates as a subsidiary. You can't operate as a subsidiary but not be a subsidiary. The article was in error. You now want to say it functions as a subsidiary. That would be a statement of opinion at best and is not backed up with any fact. Unless you can provide a more authoritative and current source than the Secretary of State, please stop rewriting this. DrCruse, you have already been banned once for sockpuppetry and vandalism.

User:Stevietheman, You are moving the goal posts on me. You asked for a published source for the statistics. These cites are from one of the most reliable news organization in Louisville. Just because the article originated with a press release doesn't mean it is unreliable, otherwise we would have to exclude half the articles in the news. The cite about schools recent graduates attended was not in the press release at all and clearly had to be sourced by the journalist. The national merit part is pretty reliable unless those are some made up students in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renwalsh (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

About the 1 in 300 million. The calculation of the odds of 6 national merit finalists in a class of 16 is pretty trivial (16!/(6! (16 - 6)!) (15/1500)^6 (1485/1500)^10) = 7.24229166e-9 or roughly one in 140 million. Adding in an additional commended student is much harder math, but will certainly increase the number significantly. 1 in 300 million is definitely in the range and is not a dubious statement by the journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renwalsh (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

But the journalist and you are engaging in synthesis rather than reporting. If you're quoting a serious study that determined these odds, that would be something, but that hasn't occurred. This odds-guessing is un-encyclopedic. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My goal posts or the moving of such is irrelevant. What's relevant are Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Once you've added a citation, that's great, but it also has to be seen as reliable. In this case, the article doesn't meet normal journalistic standards and does indeed come from a young, web-based news organization. Insider Louisville generally does great work, but in this instance, this article seems to work as more of an advertisement than a proper journalistic article. Normally, IL marks those as such and they failed to do so with this one. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Agents of Highlands Latin School - please read

If anyone editing this article is an agent of Highlands Latin School, you are required to declare your conflict of interest and cease making any substantial changes to this article (i.e., beyond simple copyedits and fixes). If you have a CoI, you should instead request changes on this talk page. Those with a CoI who continue editing this article and don't fess up could end up being blocked. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)