Talk:New Village Leadership Academy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Methodology

The website lists some ten methodologies and most sources mention study tech as one of the methods used but "somehow" this article ended up that Study Tech was essentially the only method used. I corrected the lead but the methodology section still needs works. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the information you added sourced only directly to the organization's website. If other secondary sources say that other methodologies are used, we could say that, yes. But at this point you have turned this article to rely way too heavily on a primary source (the organization's website), which is wholly inappropriate when secondary sources are available. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that as you mention some secondary sources mentioned "other methodologies" were used, I had written into the article that "study tech" was "one of its methodologies", and I backed that up to a secondary source. Can you bring forth any secondary source independent of the article's subject organization that discusses or mentions any of the other methodologies used? Cirt (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Violations of WP:OR

Let us please stick to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, and avoid overdependence of primary sources or direct citations to the company's website please. I would rather not have WP:OR violations in this article. Cirt (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR to repeat what the school says about itself. And if you look at the press, you see that that is all they go on too. Please do not blanket revert to your WP:UNDUE version. That is just rude. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I will put in the section that I think you want in there. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There, now we should both be happy. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to rely on the organization's website, when instead we should utilize secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Prior to your edits to the article that is what the article did, relied on secondary, not primary, sources. You introduced a whole bunch of material that is only dependent solely on a primary source. Please undo your edit. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So what, this is not a WP:BLP. We are talking about a school. Do you not agree that that is what the site says? If so then it is a totally acceptable use of primary sources. There is no WP:OR there. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is inappropriate, especially when secondary sources are available, to redo the entire article so much with so much overweighting to one singular primary source. Please undo. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • But you are misreading the secondary sources. They all recognize that Study Tech is just one of the methodologies used but you ignored that to craft an article that represented that Study Tech is the ONLY methodology used. I will WP:AGF that you merely erred. Look at the sources (emphasis added):
        • "The New Village Academy plans to use some teaching methods developed within the Church of Scientology" - Fox News
        • "The curriculum at Smith's New Village Academy of Calabasas, on which he has spent nearly £500,000, uses different educational theories including "study technology"" - Guardian
      • Once we understand, from the secondary sources, that Study Tech is not the only methodology being used and, seeing as the secondary sources are merely parroting what is on the web site, it becomes our duty, as an encyclopedia, to expand on that in a neutral and verifiable manner. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Please see above subsection, where I already acknowledged that I had written in the article, cited to a secondary source, that "study tech" was one of its methodologies (very similar to the wording used in the secondary sources cited above). Once we see that this is the wording used in secondary sources and that none of them discussed the other methodologies, this is a neutral and verifiable way to present this information in this article and sourced to secondary sources. I ask again - can you bring forth a secondary source that discusses one of these other "methodologies", instead of relying so heavily on a primary source, the organization's own website? Reliance on the organization's own materials in the article about that organization itself, instead of secondary sources, will tend to bring the article away from WP:NPOV, and that is something we should strive to avoid by relying instead on secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Cirt, you know as well as I do that there is scant sourcing for this article in general, basically just the Fox and Guardian pieces which were then parroted by a few more sources. So as far as secondary sources, I would limit to those two and I think you agree. Once we have the sense of the article from those sources and for the reasons I already stated it is entirely appropriate to go to the primary source in a neutral and verifiable manner to expand. That is what we do here in articles that are not WP:BLP. My usage is entirely consistent with WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY and improves the article both factually and as regards WP:NPOV. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Until it can be demonstrated that these other methodologies have been discussed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, overreliance on primary sources directly affiliated with the organization itself strays away from WP:NPOV and pushes the article more towards advertising. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks a little bit better now - at least listing the entries from the organization's website is now not as obtrusive as it had been in list-format. Would still be best to replace the citations to the group's own website with citations to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We now have a WP:V/WP:RS secondary source that describes some of the alternative educational methodologies, the Los Angeles Times, so usage of a primary source for this material is no longer needed. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you continue a somewhat novel interpretation of Wikipedia policy. There is no problem with using the school's website as a source of their methodologies especially now given that we have multiple and more specific sourcing that these methodologies are used. I will add in the full list of methods - that is of interest and is hardly "advertising". --Justallofthem (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, especially now that we have multiple secondary sources covering varying aspects of the school's background and listing various methodologies - there is simply no reason to rely on primary sources anymore for this article at all. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists to teach at celeb private school

• Associated Press (June 29, 2008). "Scientologists to teach at celeb private school". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2008-06-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Interesting to note how this is presented by the Associated Press, but probably not needed as a source as it is derived from the Los Angeles Times. (Unless snippets of the info are independent AP research, but in this case probably not.) Cirt (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Interview with Jacqueline Olivier

Just thought I'd flag this up: Tony Ortega interviewed Jacqueline Olivier [1], which was picked up by Radar Online [2] and from there Postmedia News [3]. Not sure any of that would stand up as WP:RS, but it seems to be a taster for a book she is writing... (Emperor (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC))