Talk:Albuquerque Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.	Schools Portal
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within Schools.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Mexico, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New Mexico. Join us on our project talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

well done one of the best school stages in the state ...tell us a bit more ... alumni.... refs and pics. Be neutral! welcome Victuallers 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for saying that Albuquerque Academy has the top SAT scores in the southwest?

Removed obsolete information, added a few statistics, inserted section on Charger/Sartan rivalry. Vontafeijos 05:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We should add some information about student life, such as: hwo the school offers many student activities, etc. Also, we should clean up the table with the correct facts (I couldn't find them when I made it earlier.)

The campus is only 312 acres, right?

Also, a cool idea: should we display the sweet human 50? I think it would be really cool and also would show the campus atmosphere and setting. P-unit 06:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• P-unit, if you can find that photo, please feel free to add it. Vontafeijos 02:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Rivalry additions 2 Verifiability 3 Citations still lacking 4 Contested Claims & References 5 Notable alumni 6 Various edits 7 Simms library

[edit] Rivalry additions

Please keep in mind that the Rivalry section should not become overloaded with examples of what St. Pius High School has done to Albuquerque Academy or vice versa. I don't think that's a problem now, but any more examples and that's exactly what could happen. Vontafeijos 02:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

From Wikipedia's policy page on Verifiability

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed. If you doubt the truthfulness of an unsourced statement, remove it to the talk page. Otherwise, just request a source.

I'm not going to remove every unsourced statement on AA's page, but they DO need to be cited to conform to Wikipedia policy. Please leave the citation flags in so people know what needs a citation. It would be even more constructive to find sources for these claims.

Thanks.

• Very well. I will try to find sources for the facts you have flagged. You should sign in, by the way, and sign your posts here with the four tildes. -Vontafeijos 05:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citations still lacking

Many references have been provided and this article has certainly benefited from it. However, there are some residual issues, and we should try and fix them as best as possible.

From Guidelines of Schools:

References — Provide verifiable sources of information about the school, that are independent of the school itself. This may include newspaper and magazine articles on the school. For private schools, an accreditation body or government source should be provided to show the organization is a legitimate school. An article should not rely solely on what its subject has to say about itself (as with any article in Wikipedia). If a resource is online (which is ideal) consider that potential it will go offline (newspaper's often allow free reading only for recent stories) and provide sufficient information that the story could still be found (author, publication, full article title, date, etc).

The only fact with a fully compliant citation is the St. Pius incident. Every other citation is from AA itself, or is not fully and properly transcribed.

--Ryan Utt 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would say that citations from The Albuquerque Academy Advocate are valid because it is published completely independent of official school opinions, administrator influence, or prior review. What appears in the publication is not approved by anyone in the administration, nor can they dictate what stories and angles are covered.

Highschool student newspapers generally don't meet Wikipedia criteria for verifiability so it doesn't matter if the AA Advocated is "independent" or not, but this is not the point. The major contention is that AA itself is used as the only source for multiple claims in the AA article. This is against the guidelines for high schools and it should be changed. Furthermore, the alledged citation of AAs literary magazine winning a "Lighthouse Award" doesn't actually identify an article and hence the claim is still uncited. --Ryan Utt 07:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, all citations include every piece of information available. If things like the exact date of publication or the author cannot be found, then they obviously cannot be included. Any style book will tell you that. This is the case for the Associated Press article on the St. Pius razor incident and the 2005 Tribune Lighthouse Award Winners publication. Those are considered to be correct citations since all the information isn't available. -Vontafeijos 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You may have cited the articles as best as you can and hence they might be "correct" citations, but if you can't name a specific source then your claim doesn't pass the criteria for verifiability. If the "best" you can do is allude to some article alledgedly existing, then you're going to have to remove the claim. Sorry. --Ryan Utt 07:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I did name a specific source in all citations that adheres to the resource style for Wikipedia. None of the sources "allude" to a source; it just so happens that many of them are not online, which is perfectly acceptable, as you know. -Vontafeijos 16:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A proper citation contains complete information about where the information came from so that the source can be checked independently. Your belief that anything less than a complete citation is sufficient is demonstratably false. Please read Wikipedia's policy for Verifiability under the section "When Adding Information." Notice where it says: "add a full citation in the References section at the end of the page." --Ryan Utt 11:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not listening. The citation is full and complete if all available information is present, which is the case for all citations present. Which citations are you objecting to, incidentally? -Vontafeijos 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that a citation is full and complete if all available information is present. Incidentally, what you are saying is demonstratably wrong. Reread the previous sentance s-l-o-w-l-y. If you examine Verifiability under the section "When Adding Information" it tells you what is meant by "full citation":

Giving a full citation means that ... readers will know how to track down the original article.

Do you understand? --Ryan Utt 08:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And how could a reader not locate the sources themselves? With the exception of the Lighthouse award citation (which you are welcome to fix if you can find a better source), all citations include the date of publication, the publication name, and the article title, which is more than enough information to find the article in question.

As Camerafiend stated below, if you still object to the citations, fix them, but do not remove them. An "incomplete" citation (if that is what it actually is) is better than no citation. -Vontafeijos 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to fix your citations. I've stated my case before. If you're not going to make your work compliant with official policy, then I will make it consistent one way or the other. --Ryan Utt 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I understand what you are saying. Incidentally, I have come to the conclusion that you are demonstratably stupid. Reevaluate your life C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y, hence, you shall find some verbose passive voice sentences including fictitious words. You obviously do not meet the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. Do you understand? Dyntyne 04:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Disparaging another's use of the passive voice might be quite the insult at AA, but it falls flat outside the shelter halls of private school. Next time you should try something like -- "Ryan, you're so stupid that you waste your time arguing about a wikipedia article that nobody will ever read aside from you and the grandiose students who authored it." Or, better yet, why don't you engage the actual substance of the debate? If I'm so "demonstratably stupid" then why don't you demonstrate it by proving me wrong. --Ryan Utt 07:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, Wikipedia has this thing called Be Bold. In other words, if you're not satisfied with the sources Vontafeijos has provided, do something constructive and look for the sources yourself instead of badgering him about it. Incidentally, the parts of the article you're griping about weren't even written by Vontafeijos, so he's doing you a favor by attempting to address your concerns. Camerafiend 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The link to the New Mexico Department of Education was broken. Guidelines for Schools says "an accreditation body or government source should be provided to show the organization is a legitimate school" so it's critical that a new citation be found for at least one of the accrediation bodies. AA obviously is a legitimate school so this shouldn't be too hard, but I don't know much about private schools so I wouldn't know where to look. --Ryan Utt 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contested Claims & References

The following claims are chronically uncited and are being move here to the talk page :

Sale of the land over the years and careful management of the proceeds created a $200 million endowment which since then has grown, placing the Albuquerque Academy among the highest endowed secondary schools in the United States

The student population of the Academy ranks among the most diverse for independent schools throughout the country

Albuquerque Academy prides itself on its personal attention to its students with an 8:1 student/teacher ratio, but simply in terms of such tangibles as facilities and average SAT score, the school now ranks alongside such schools as St. Mark's School of Texas in Dallas and the Kinkaid School in Houston.

The following reference is from a student newspaper and is not a credible source. It is being removed.

Nelson, Robby (September 2002). "'X' Marks the spot: a rivalry since 1954". The Albuquerque Academy Advocate.

The following reference is incomplete and is being moved here to the talk page until a full and complete citation can be given:

High School Journalism Lighthouse Award Winners. 2005.

--Ryan Utt 07:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfourtunately, you do not realize that any newspaper except for tablods are considered respectable sources for Wikipedia. 207.225.62.126 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable alumni

I'm doubting the notability of some of these so-called "notable alumni." In particular:

• Greg Archuleta, "controversial Lobo football writer for the Albuquerque Journal."

• Martin Chavez, "computer programmer and Wall Street broker, not to be confused with the Albuquerque Mayor of the same name."

• Michael Robbins, "World Bank Consultant and PhD student at the University of Michigan."

As it stands, none of these entries sufficiently explain why the subject is notable. Credentials like "World Bank Consultant," "programmer and Wall Street broker," or "controversial Lobo football writer" do not constitute notability. If these people are to remain in the list, better evidence of notability needs to be provided.

Camerafiend 02:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Let's be skeptical and get rid of those for now until notability can be established. -Vontafeijos 05:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Of all of them, perhaps only Notah is notable. Ehusman 19:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on many of these; I would give Chainey Umphrey the benefit of the doubt. I also added Brian Conrey, who is notable as the founding director of a significant institute. I'll go ahead and remove the others. -- Spireguy 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various edits

I mainly focused on the history section, trying to make it more readable, tightening it up, and correcting some information. (E.g. I don't think the BLM ever had any role in the land swap, and the CABQ source confirms that it was in fact the Forest Service.) I also did some random cleanup on other sections, including the Bear Canyon subsection. Hope the edits are an improvement. Overall the article still needs more verifiable, independent citations, as mentioned by various folks above; that's a longer-term project. However for some noncontroversial facts I did cite the school as a source, as an interim measure. -- Spireguy 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simms library

Hello 71.222.163.43---regarding the recent edits to the Simms Library subsection:

• First, I don't think I was completely clear in my edit summary regarding the topographic map, sorry. The point I was trying to make was that "highest point" usually means "highest elevation". Since the campus is on a slope, ground level at the far east end of campus is quite a lot higher than it is at the library--to be precise, 130 feet higher, see the Topozone map. Unless the spire is over 130 feet tall, it's not the highest point on campus, even if it is the tallest structure. (Is it definitely taller than the ExEd tower?) So I'd like to change it back to "tallest structure" with a {{fact}} tag to note that even that claim really should be sourced. (Of course much of the article still needs better citations.)
• Second, about "most iconic"; I see that you deleted the "weasel words", which is appropriate. But I still think the whole thing should go. Who says it is "most iconic"? That's quite a subjective statement, so it's dubious under neutral point of view, especially since it is unsourced. So I would like to delete the "most iconic" entirely unless/until a source is found for such a claim. Remember that the burden is on the editor putting in material, if it is at all controversial, to make sure that it is NPOV and verifiable.
• Please respond to these comments; I won't make revisions right away. Thanks -- Spireguy 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)