Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School

Archives (Index)

1 2

Untitled comment

it lists tuition at over 220,000 a year , must be a typo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.104.199 (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please give references for reverts

The title reads better with a break after the name proper; where does wiki say that this improvement in looks is not permitted? When the picture is enlarged the affiliation takes one less line, and looks more appealing. I've reintroduced a more modest set of links; please explain why you are removing these so that we have something to discuss. Thanks for showing where you find these directives in Wiki; I suggest that those who have not contributed significantly to an article should not just edit it to impose their stylistic preferences. As to including the designation of a school official as a priest or member of a religious congregation, this is not an honorific but an indication that the school remains directly under the control of the group that founded it, and has not moved on to lay control. This is quite something different than listing academic degrees after a name. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jzsj. You were absent for a period. Hope you are well. I'm not prepared to discuss the title/post nominal issue right now, and I'd suggest listing the links you want with a brief explanation of what they show, and how they benefit the article. I'll look up some things and get back to you on the titles thing. On the picture I disagree, and I think you'll understand why once I explain some things. Your explanation above boils down to "it looks better to me as I look at it on my monitor", right? I think perhaps you are not aware that the page does not render the same on every device used to view it. Wikimedia software adjusts the page rendering to best fit the format of the device you are using to access it. For example, I access Wikipedia almost exclusively on a phone, slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes, and the picture size does not change the way the school name renders on it. By the way, portable device page views outnumber computer page views by quite a bit last I heard (about 60/40). That's why using thumbs in the body of the article and autosizing in the infobox is preferred. Uniformity between articles on similar topics in layout is also a positive, so letting the infobox size the images in it accomplishes that too. At 280, the image actually makes the infobox itself larger, which throws off the layout of the rest of the article on small format devices. So no, I cannot agree with you on that. Pretty sure I'll be equally inflexible on the title thing too. Much more open to persuasion on the links tho. At least it wasn't every club and team's webpage, which is what I usually encounter. Gotta go clean up after the church ladies early AM (they put the Christmas decorations away and Pastor tells me there's quite a mess), and then a swim date with my son, so I won't be back til this time tomorrow. Take care. John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would defend all the prominent links, which help those deciding on a school or whether to support the model, so that they realize how successful this model has actually been. I'm open to omitting the links that are otherwise mentioned in the article. As to using a phone to view websites, I'll keep that in mind but I doubt if it's the normal way in this case: poor parents might go to a library to use a computer and executives are probably on their desktops. I repeat that I see no directive from Wiki that we must follow the options for infoboxes without using other Wiki options to make the boxes more attractive. A chief instance: where the title of boxes comes to two lines and the entries on the right are only a few numerals, leaving large open spaces in the infobox. These contribute to the excessive length of the infobox and to its unsightliness. And if Wiki doesn't want some options like "br" and "big" used in infoboxes, why don't they make them inoperable there or explain these policies? As to why I'm absent for periods, I am the main prison chaplain for the diocese, helping at five state correctional centers and also at a parish on a regular basis. Then there's writing, with my 52nd article coming out this month, in The Way. Jzsj (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the purpose of this article. It's an encyclopedia article, not a promotional page for the school or the educational model; nor is it a feature article in a newspaper or magazine. It's supposed to be a factual, straightforward piece aimed at a general readership, not an inducement for parents or students. If you could find some scholarly evaluations of the educational model, that would be helpful. 32.218.39.162 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of what is of relevance about a school. Much that appears in Wikipedia is an inducement for parents and students: mention of sports championships, of notable alumni, of other honors the school received, of books informing about the nature of the school model pursued. I'm not sure what you mean by "scholarly evaluations" but I would not denigrate those who have commented on the model and brought it to national attention. The issue here might be how incredibly successful this model has been, but why must this be hidden from those interested in getting a better understanding of the school, through the eyes of outsiders who have worked with the school and give objective assessments of its results. Is it the fault of the school that these outside evaluations come out very positive? I couldn't see how to ping you but you will find a note at your newly-opened user talk page. Jzsj (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the Cristo Rey model. That info belongs in Cristo Rey Network, not in this article and all the other various school articles. repeating all of those links over and over in each article looks like an attempt to promote the model, and that is not what Wikipedia is here for. Meters (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've left out "all the links" and tied in the ones most relevant to this article. Please explain to me how this is mere promotion and not valid assessment of this very model as it is practiced at this school. @Meters: Jzsj (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Media plaudits and personal anecdotes do not qualify as "validation"; they're hype, nothing more. If such commentary qualified as "validation", then the DARE program would be the most successful intervention in the history of planet earth, when in fact, every single scholarly evaluation done of it (dozens of them) has failed to show its effectiveness at preventing drug use. Again, if you know of any peer-reviewed evidence-based reports on the effectiveness of the program, then please include that information in the Cristo Rey Network article (not here or in any of the individual high school articles). 32.218.42.196 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that the Boston Globe article, that clarifies the nature of all (and of this) Cristo Rey schools, has at least as much standing in Wikipedia as the Pleasanton Weekly which is referenced 34 times in the article on the featured school Amador Valley High School. Jzsj (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article is already cited in the Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School article. And for the umpteenth time, stop comparing anything Cristo Rey-related to any other article. WP:OTHERSTUFF is neither a compelling nor a valid argument. 32.218.152.164 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, this, and every other article in this encyclopedia, is not here to serve ′′any′′ purpose or goal of the subject of the article. Instead, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize what has been written about the subject in independent sources. Not connected sources. Articles are meant to be narrowly focused, as Meters mentioned above. You do not need to add copy about related subjects. Instead, just wikilink the article on the subject once. And the information in the article needs to be aimed at a general audience, not a narrowly focused group such as a certain religion. Do you honestly think anyone other than a Catholic knows or cares what the alphabet soup you're adding after people's names means? John from Idegon (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Identifying people by their religious order is extremely common in infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. It's not a policy I'm originating. Usually one checks the article to find what order is mentioned. Jzsj (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And it is out of policy. MOS:NAME is the applicable guideline. And there are plenty of articles that are formatted wrong, promotional or downright factually incorrect in Wikipedia. If you find a pile of dog crap in your living room, is it proper to ignore it because the dog crapped in the parlor too? Just because other articles are done incorrectly is no reason this one should stay that way. You've had two different editors tell you using titles and post nominal letters is not within style guides, but you persist in asserting the correctness of your position despite it. As you can tell from my delay in returning to this discussion, I'm a busy guy and really don't like wasting my time reexplaining again something you should have accepted in good faith. John from Idegon (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I find justification (in the reference you give) for using the postnominal of a religious who is an administrator at the institution. It is in the statement: "... when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material." The post-nominals being discussed all pertain to the institution under discussion and give a very succinct indication that the institution is presently under the oversight of the group that founded it. If you have a reference that contradicts this interpretation, I need to know it. Jzsj (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The designation "Sr." and the post-nominal "SNDdeN" are a succinct way of indicating in the infobox that an institution is under the direct leadership of a religious order or diocese. I think it's an important principle to establish that such pre-nominals and post-nominals are admissible in infoboxes, or someone may proceed to remove them wholesale from the hundreds of articles that contain them. They are clearer than a mere reference in the infobox, and such references are discountenanced at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#References in infoboxes. I find nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Names referred to above that would rule out this usage in infoboxes. Jzsj (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

IPlease avoid explicitly setting the thumbnail size to a specific number of pixels. If there is a consensus that an image needs to be bigger, please use the “upright” parameter to set a scaling ratio. See WP:IMGSIZE Billhpike (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to this. I've picked up most of my info from other articles, and even featured articles like Duke University still use the "px" option. I'll be more sensitive to the needs of "smaller device" users in the future. Jzsj (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)@Jzsj: You were bold and added some content; it was subsequently removed by another editor who disputes its encycopedic relevance. What should happen now is that you follow WP:BRD and try to establish a consensus for re-adding it. If a discussion cannot be established on this talk page, then follow the next step in WP:DR. Continuing to try to re-add the content is going to be seen as edit warring on your part, so it's better to be WP:CAUTIOUS here. The version of the article which you are in favor of can be seen in the article's edit history, but a link to it can be found here for review/comparison purposes. FWIW, I've only removed the content per WP:STATUSQUO; if the consensus is to re-add it, then it can and will be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My view: The content cited to the 60 Minutes piece supplements exsiting uncited content and belongs in the article. The list of college matriculations is just WP:PROMO and should not be included. Billhpike (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for being distinguishing in your edits, and for giving reasons. But I don't understand how "acclaimed" can be a weasel word here when it is hugely substantiated in the link that follows it. Please explain. Jzsj (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not hugely substantiated. (See my comment above.) It's simply an opinion. 32.218.42.196 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please check the references in the article Cristo Rey Network. You seem to be setting a very narrow and high norm for acclaim if the board members of the Gates Foundation which gave the network $15.9 million in grants and the judgment of 60 minutes do not exceed the acclaim received by the D.A.R.E. show. Any organization may run into disrepute. If it does this should be mentioned in the Wiki article on it. But until it does we must go by the acclaim that the above knowledge-based sources, and scholarly writers for reputable newspapers, have given as their considered assessment of the model. I strongly suggest that the word "acclaimed" be restored, unless you can find better support in Wiki for what you are maintaining. Jzsj (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

1. The newspapers haven't "assessed" the model; they've described it. Read this to understand the difference.
2. "Acclaimed", as already described by another editor, is a WP:WEASEL word intended to bias the reader. But one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that it strives to be neutral and factual, not to influence readers or to advocate for any point of view. Let the reader decide, from the article and its sources, whether the program is "acclaimed". 32.218.32.187 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You're referring me to a Wiki article that describes weasel words as those where "only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". This hardly applies to the money given by the Gates foundation or the coverage given by 60 minutes. Jzsj (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Taking up a thread from the (search: MOS:NAME) discussion above, this is a very important issue, whether all the many infoboxes which carry a post-nominal of a religious institute after a person's name, and Fr. or Sr. before a name, are against expressed policy. At the MOS:NAME reference you give I find no mention of religious pre- or post-nominals. Do you know a clear reference for why the pre- and post- nominals should be removed when a name like Fr. John Doe, SJ is carried in an infobox? Understood that the Fr. and the SJ would be explained in the article or linked in the infobox. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Further reading section

I've removed the further reading section. Again. The book in question has as a subtitle "how one school's vision is changing the world". Worldcat makes it clear that the one school is a school in Chicago here. I clearly understand this is a general book about the Cristo Rey movement (method?), but again, Cristo Rey is not the subject of this article; this one particular school is. It may be a fine addition for the linked article on Cristo Rey; but as a university published academic source, its best use there would be as a source. Here, it seems more promotional of the movement (method?) than informative about the school. If there is a specific fact in this article that is on topic to this article that this book could verify, please add it as a source (with a quote and specific page numbers please). John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Mention of this book has been added to the Cristo Rey article and to all 35 articles about Cristo Rey schools. I can see mentioning it in the Cristo Rey article and in the article about the Chicago school, but the rest of the mentions are promotional. Meters (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Meters? Is there a category for those schools? John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The category is given on the bottom of the page at Cristo Rey Network. Jzsj (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Cristo Rey Network Billhpike (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked the 35 schoosl listed in Cristo Rey Network#Schools in Network. The category actually contains a few additional schools. I'll check if the links are in those when I start cleaning up the other 35. Meters (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that it is precisely by propagating the model and the similarity of the other schools that the model begun in Chicago is changing the world. I think we should have an open discussion of this before you assume that a book on the model is not relevant to every school that closely follows that model. I won't have access to this book until the last week of this month but at that time I will produce what I can on the relevance of the book to various of the other 35 schools. Jzsj (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you added the book to 36 articles, sometimes more than once in each article without having read the book? And you wonder why I'm suggesting that your addition of the book and the other links you added to each article is promotional? Meters (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Say where you read it" follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT Billhpike (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read many quotations and abstracts of it, which come from the book and therefore are "reading the source". Now I'll be looking for references that include other schools besides Chicago. I don't know why you have taken off after these schools, when there is no clear directive that what's in these articles is wrong. And no one proposed to make them exemplary articles, so why don't you let be unless changes are explicitly required, and make reversions with more consideration and respect for others? Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect in saying that I am the one who introduced the "Dream" book or the numerous links after the articles. I began work only in April 2015. Please check these articles before that to see all the work of other people that you are reverting. Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that just because a fact is mentioned in another Wiki article doesn't mean that reference can't be made to it to clarify the effectiveness of an institution. Something similar, but not identical, is where schools like Georgetown University go to some length, in their primary article, on topics like athletics and alumni where they also have whole additional articles on the topics. Jzsj (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct that you did not add the original mention of the book to all of the articles. A WP:SPA who ]]was active for all of four days added many of them in 2007. You either tweaked the text of the book mention, added it where it was missing, or added a duplicate mention of it to each of the articles that I checked. You also added a virtually identical list ofmostly inappropriate external links to each article I checked. In the case of this article, you were not even looking at the lbook link you were adding , or you would not have repeatedly added a link that had been hijacked and was entitled "This website is for sale!"

I have not made any changes to the other school articles yet, but I'm not seeing any valid argument here that convinces me that the mention of the book is appropriate for this this article. If it's not appropriate for this article then it isn't appropriate for the other school articles (other than possibly the one mentioned in the book) either. Similarly, the collection of external links removed form this article foe3s not belong in the orther school articles eitehr. We have an article about the Network, and that's where most of this beloings. We don't need to copy it into 35 school articles. Meters (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is what I referred you to in the Georgetown article, that just because accomplishments were mentioned in another, linked article, this does not mean that a meaningful, shorter bit cannot be included to give a better sense of what is being described in the institution at hand, even if, as in this case, it comes from the general success of the model. Without such a description immediately at hand a proper sense of what is being discussed would easily be overlooked. I would like to write a few-line summary of the success that the model in general has attained, to replace the full description of the book which someone composed for the articles. Jzsj (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well sourced material that was reverted

Please avoid gross reverts without checking the sources: what part of my additions could you not find in the sources? @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think John was able to find the sources, but felt that they violated WP:SELFSOURCE. Billhpike (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope that John will explain himself here. This is preferred before one goes to conflict resolution. If the Boston Globe is a self source then what hope have most high schools of including a description of their success stories in Wikipedia? @John from Idegon: @Billhpike: Jzsj (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You again added an entire section sourced only to the school. Your statement about corporations was not in any way verified by the source provided. No comment at this time on the Globe bit, but please don't replace any of this content without discussion. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps in the "good" or "featured" school categories the stringent norms you are enforcing may apply. But most schools freely reference their website if the claims they make are credible, given that school websites are written for their clientele who would be put off if the school was giving misleading statements on its website. The statements about retreats and the modest statement about service seem like the factual statements most schools quote from their websites (unless you are trying to reform most school websites and beginning here; I'm referring to websites that are well beyond the stub stage).

Is it proper practice to revert things without having checked to see whether your revert is justified? From the above sections on this page I would say that there are open questions about whether your reverts were justified there, also. As to corporations, the articles quoted include the following:

"Its poverty rate in 2013 was 29.2 percent"

"Notre Dame students work five days per month at a private company to earn 60 percent of their $12,000 tuition." (That's $7,200 for five, eight-hour work days a month for nine months, or $20/hour).(Ibid.)

(I'd also like to add:) "Notre Dame students, who attend a two-week training course in August before starting their jobs."(Ibid.)

"Without a doubt the students have proven themselves to be valuable resources in supporting our members and we are already anticipating the benefits that year three of this Work Study Program will bring."

@John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• You used a source from a single company to support a statement that was about multiple corporations. It is becoming quite clear that your intentions here are not to accurately portray what has been said about the school in reliable sources, but to promote the school. Further, two separate administrators at ANI told you I'm not overreaching the guidelines. Please find better sources, accurately portray what they say, stop promoting, or drop it. No one is supporting your position. John from Idegon (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj: In case you haven't figured it out yet, many editors here are weary of your casuistic splitting of hairs. Wikipedia and most of its editors operate based on well-established principles and guidelines, not on exquisite (although irrational) arguments about exceptions to the rules. (e.g., ALL articles, not just good or featured articles, should adhere to guidelines.) Your constant badgering and questioning of the behavior of well-meaning editors also smacks of WP:UNCIVIL. Please knock it off. 32.218.35.175 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Jzsj, I am an administrator and I find your notion that it is OK for articles that are not yet Good or Featured articles to deviate from our established standards to be just plain wrong. Every edit to every article should improve it, in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. When you ask, "what hope have most high schools of including a description of their success stories in Wikipedia?", the answer is "no hope whatsoever". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for telling promotional stories for any person, business or organization. This is a neutrally written encyclopedia summarizing what independent sources say about a topic and we simply do not tell "success stories" referenced to primary sources. This article does not belong to Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School or its enthusiastic supporters. It belongs to the community of neutral editors and that is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I understood you to want an independent source for information about specifics of the work study program. Since that's not the case, I hope to be able to use the info on the schools' websites to describe their program. What is the likelihood that they are lying when it would put them in trouble with the 100 (more or less) corporations that they are trying to get to buy in on their program? Here we're speaking about knowledge of what is happening; if it gives a good impression of the school it's at least a more solid basis for evaluating a school than all the sports conquests that seem to have a place in Wiki. Isn't this the "common sense" application of the Wiki guidelines that Wiki speaks about? Also, I hope that when those who are getting this article to meet all the Wiki norms for good articles they will nominate the school for the honor they've worked so hard to establish. Jzsj (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sports conquests do not belong in school articles either, although please do not start removing them yourself -- I have removed a few and will remove more. I also remove some of the more tiresome content about marching bands and similar. In general, we don't spend time judging whether a school website is lying or not, because we already know that the school website is designed to market the school. It is an advertising tool. We use it for uncontroversial facts only. By the way, a Wiki is a type of interactive editing environment. Wikipedia is a term used for something much more specific. You can take a look at the Wikipedia article, by the way, to see how many of the positive statements made in that article about Wikipedia, are sourced only to Wikipedia itself. MPS1992 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please take into consideration that a school article can fall into more than one category, like when those supporting the school are doing it for reasons of achieving greater equity or social justice. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages we read that "most articles are within the scope of multiple WikiProjects, and seek(s) to avoid conflicting advice." But there is no project to advance the publication of articles on "social justice". I see the Cristo Rey Model of school spanning the schools and the social justice areas and not fitting into the tight categories of those looking only to standardize all school articles. I commend efforts to improve school articles but I think less rigidity in advancing what you see as ideal and more willingness to respect differences among school types would better serve the overall purpose of Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. Perhaps if all you have is a Jesuit mindset, then everything looks like an issue of social justice. This article is about a school, not about a larger movement to attain social justice. 32.218.34.232 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

To acknowledge the fact that these schools are about teaching for the sake of greater equity in society, the Category:Poverty-related organizations should be added on the website of each school. To say it's contained in the Category:Cristo Rey Network is misleading, since that category name says nothing about poverty (though the article makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of each school in the network is to assist economically disadvantaged youth). Why be so opposed to merely adding this very appropriate category? Jzsj (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You have already started an RFC on this. There's not much point in going back and adding more to teh earlier threads. Meters (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes

Take it to Template talk:Infobox school. Completely off topic here John from Idegon (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

After reading the pages on Template:Infobox school and Template:Infobox school/doc, I find no statement on how the various lines are to be used. In the Template:Infobox school/doc#Examples, US schools example, where 6 lines are used on the left to give just six numerals on the right, I consider this a poor example of how to use an infobox. There is no uniformity, and if we were to impose it without justification in established Wikipedia policy, I believe we'd be opting for excessive similarity in infoboxes when the whole page on infoboxes is expansive and suggestive of introducing additional options. Jzsj (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Poverty-related organizations

I seek a consensus on the addition of the Category:Poverty-related organizations to articles on schools in the Cristo Rey Network, and most specifically for this school. My addition of this category was reverted with no reason given but with the proposal that I seek consensus. When one looks at the purpose of Cristo Rey schools – to give underprivileged children a better chance at obtaining a university degree – I think the category is justified. It is also justified by what corporations give as a motive for employing students from these schools. I ask that the category be restored, as justified for all schools in the Cristo Rey Network. These schools are a part of a larger effort to raise people in our (USA) inner cities out of the cycle of poverty. Jzsj (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that Category:Poverty-related organizations may be appropriate, but per WP:SUPERCAT, the best solution is to add Category:Cristo Rey Network to Category:Poverty-related organizations.Billhpike 15:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

GAHHHH. Jzsj, it doesn't have anything to do with one looking at anything. No one is replying to the arguments you've made because you are not making arguments. All you are doing is telling us how you feel. I don't care how you feel. I don't care how Bill feels, I don't care how Meters feels, I don't care how 32 feels and I highly doubt any of them really cares how I feel. Categories, like everything else, need to be based on reliable verifiable independent sources, not your "feelings". Policies do not dictate content, excepting the very few that are in place to ensure compliance with law. Policy informs consensus. Consensus is built by citing sources. The editor wanting content is responsible for convincing those opposed to the content that it is worthy of inclusion. You do this by citing sources. Please stop wasting our time. John from Idegon (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I hold that each school belongs in Category:Poverty-related organizations and not just the model. Cristo Rey Network is a member, not a supercategory of Poverty related organizations. And this is as it should be. Unlike all the subcategories of Poverty-related organizations, Cristo Rey Network does not in itself imply any relation to poverty. Each school deserves this tag. I look for consensus that this category may be added to this school, and to the other schools which show the purpose of their founding to be to give a better opportunity to those caught in the cycle of poverty. Across Wikipedia I find no movement to conceal what categories an organization belongs to. Your reference here suggests a change in the present categorization of the network and I hold that its changing would not serve to clarify the nature of this school. Jzsj (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Billhpike that, if the cat is warranted, it should be at the level of the Cristo Rey Network, not on the individual schools. Meters (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the six mentions of Billpike above but I do not see that he has yet weighed in on this one. Jzsj (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

His is the first reply to you, Jzsj. He failed to sign. And again you are persisting in making arguments without evidence. That is nothing but a waste of other editors' time. Either provide sources to back your arguments or do not make them please. John from Idegon (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not even a hint in this article or in Cristo Rey Network of the school's or network's goals relative to reducing poverty. Where's the beef? 32.218.42.4 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Poverty-related" is not the same as "reducing poverty". When the article says the schools are "for students who might otherwise not receive a college education" that's poverty-related. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Serving a low-income clientele is not synonymous with "poverty-related". Both St. Vincent de Paul thrift stores and The Dollar Store serve low-income clientele, but they're hardly "poverty-related" programs.
2. You need a source that explicitly says that this school's aims are poverty related. 32.218.42.4 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If you check the Category:Poverty-related organizations you'll find these schools very much at home there. And don't confuse NPOs like a St, Vincent de Paul Thrift Store with a business for profit like a Dollar Store. Jzsj (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, categorization, like virtually everything else in Wikipedia, is based on sources. Please provide actual sources which unequivocally state that this school is a poverty related organization. John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This. You ignored #2. Plus you missed the point of #1 completely. I wasn't comparing the organizations; I was comparing their clientele. If you simply say that an organization serves a low-income population, that doesn't make the organization a "poverty-related" organization. 32.218.42.4 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've responded below by showing that the stated purpose is to serve poor people. Please be clearer on what you see it meaning to call an organization poverty-related, and explain how these schools differ from those organizations actually in the poverty related category. I suggest that's the ultimate test of the meaning of a category, to see the breadth of organizations which this category includes. Jzsj (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's begin with the Cristo Rey Network's stated purpose, and then see how 60 minutes gave one report on how this purpose was being fleshed out. The stated purpose of these schools that follow the Cristo Rey model is to serve “students with limited economic resources”, providing an “ inner-city education that equips students from economically-disadvantaged families”. The 60 minutes report makes it clear that the school caters to inner city youth, quoting an official from the original school in Chicago: "We've had gang problems here. Shootings happen and people die," says Torch. "This is happening in their neighborhoods." … “It happened to Sergio Garcia, who would have been Cristo Rey class of 2004. He was bright, popular, and he was shot and killed on his block last year. It's not known if he was in a gang, but Torch says despite several warnings, Garcia kept breaking the No. 1 rule: no fraternizing with gang members.” … “After Garcia's murder, Torch cracked down, expelling five other boys for associating with gangs. He says that's not hard to do when gang members are friends, neighbors, even family.” … “Ten years ago, this Chicago community had a dropout rate that soared as high as 75 percent. For the Cristo Rey class of 2004, the dropout rate is one percent.” It seems clear to me that from its purpose as realized in any reports you care to check about it, the model was devised to assist youth caught up in the cycle of poverty. That's its stated purpose and evidenced in its clientele. The Network article mentions "low-income families" in the intro and later "students from underserved, low-income communities". Please be clear on what more you want to see and I'll look for it in the many other sources in the Network article that show how this model is being implemented. Jzsj (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

All you've done in the above paragraph is repeat six times that the program serves low-income youth. 32.218.42.4 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

... and in doing so it is realizing its consistently stated purpose. Jzsj (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This conversation should take place at Cristo Rey Network unless there are unique arguments related to this specific school. Billhpike (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason it's taking place here is that I believe this category can be added to the articles on each Cristo Rey school; each one is founded with poverty alleviation in mind. As their motto says, "transforming urban America, one student at a time". Jzsj (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So because you say so? Discussion of anything but this article is obviously off topic here. And you have no consensus to include the category you want here, so unless you have a source that actually labels this institution a "poverty-related" organization, I'd say we are done here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that we've gone as far as we can without inviting more editors into this discussion. Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on categorizing Cristo Rey schools

May all Cristo Ray schools be placed in the category “Poverty-related organizations”? Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Simply making Cristo Rey Network a subcategory of Category:Poverty-related organizations would not give evidence on each school's Wikipedia page that the school's essential purpose is poverty related. All the other subcategories of  Poverty related schools have clear indication in the subcategory name that they are poverty related. Also, as explained at Wikipedia:Category intersection#Background, there is no established Wikipedia policy "defining the circumstances in which articles should be added to both "lower level" and "higher level" categories".

The purpose of Cristo Rey schools is clearly poverty-related. It is the primary reason that thousands of corporations employ students from these 35 schools across the country. The Cristo Rey Network's stated purpose is to serve “students with limited economic resources”, providing an “ inner-city education that equips students from economically-disadvantaged families” to obtain a university degree. The 60 minutes report makes it clear that the schools cater to inner city youth. All the many articles published about these schools consistently point out that they have been founded precisely to serve disadvantaged youth in the inner cities. Checking the other entries in the category “Poverty-related organizations” indicates that Cristo Rey schools would be very much at home in this category. They would not fit as well in any category describing "charities", as can be seen from the organizations listed under "charities". Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Assuming a source can be found, Category:Cristo Rey Network should be added to Category:Social welfare charities based in the United States, which is a subcategory of Category:Poverty-related organizations. Billhpike (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• OpposeThere is no evidence that Cristo Rey Network aims at addressing poverty; it simply serves youth from low-income families. Also oppose Billhpike's suggestion to include Category:Cristo Rey Network in Category:Social welfare charities based in the United States. The network is an educational provider, not a social welfare provider. It does not provide food, clothing, shelter, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, family therapy, foster care, adoption services, or any other form of social service. It provides education. It is an educational charity and belongs in Category:Educational charities based in the United States. 32.218.34.95 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Further comment: Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is registered as a 501(c)(3) charity with the federal government. Per IRS Publication 557, 501(c)(3) is defined as "Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations". Its foundation status, as registered with the IRS, is: "School 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)". Within the official National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE), "a system developed by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to classify nonprofit organizations", (See first link above.) it is classified as "Secondary, High School" and "Educational Institutions and Related Activities", not "Human Services - Multipurpose and Other". This seems definitive; per the U.S. federal government, a reliable source, and the school itself, the school is an educational charity, not a poverty-related program. 32.218.46.39 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the discussions in the previous threads, this category (or any other applicable category) would be better applied to Category:Cristo Rey Network if it were determined that it applied. I'm starting to have my doubts that the category would be applicable even at the network level though. Many high schools and universities have programs that combine work and study, but it is done simply for the work experience rather than for poverty reasons. As has been said, we need reliable sources that say that the Cristo Rey Network's goal is related to poverty. Having said that, this is getting off topic. The RFC at hand is whether to add this category to all of the school in the Croisto Rey Network. I oppose that. The issue of whether to add the category to the network should no tbe decided here. Meters (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the above. A discussion of a wider topic is off-topic here. Many schools, public and private, have programs in place to aid the families of students that are impoverished. That does not mean their purpose (even secondarily) is fighting poverty. Many studies have shown that if you diminish the effects of poverty's bi-products (hunger, lack of adequate clothing, etc) on students, they become better students. Addressing the causes of poverty (of which lack of educational opportunities is a biggie) is or should be a primary goal of every educational institution. I could see adding the network to this catagory, but not any individual school, and as it stands now, this is not an adequate forum to address the question of categories on another article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - belongs under Category:Educational charities based in the United States as it currently is. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose They educate and empower but do not make the pupils or parents any richer. The Banner talk 15:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support First of all, the school is an organization, an institution. The category under discussion is about organizations and not "programs".

Second, "poor people" is a subset of "low-income people". If this school does something for low-income people in general, then it affects/includes poor people also.

Third, let's ask ourselves: If an institution provides low-income people "only" with shoes, wouldn't that qualify the organization as one that helps low-income people? It surely would. Someone above objected on the grounds that the school "does not provide food, clothing, shelter, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, family therapy, foster care, adoption services, or any other form of social service"; only "education"! That I find to be a preposterous argument. Education is a supreme enrichment of the intellect, while also, strictly socially, an important and very useful qualification. And we do not need "third-party sources" to support this claim since, if anything, all Wikipedia contributors are here on this basis exactly! We cannot seriously say that an organization offers "only" education, as if that is not a significant contribution on its own. At the very least, let's not say it in the pages of Wikipedia.

Clincher: The operative word here is income. The school's stated purpose is expressly to serve “students with limited economic resources.” That means "people with low income." If organization XYZ aims to offer something (money, materials, education) to people who are poor, then, by definition, that is an organization that relates its work to poverty; it is itself related to poverty. It's a poverty-related organization. -The Gnome (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment By that logic, we could categorize every single educational institution on the planet as "poverty-related". We could also include all employers, e.g., GE, Amazon, Walmart, etc., as "poverty-related" because they provide incomes to their employees, and without an income those employees would be poor. I don't think we really need to resort to a Rube Goldberg train of causality here; we need to focus on proximal goals, not distal ones. The proximal goal of this school and others in the Cristo Rey Network is to provide an education. 32.218.152.188 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Further, it is very difficult to view an organization that charges a minimum of $3300 to provide a service that can be obtained for free elsewhere as truly dedicated to alleviating poverty. Before it should even be considered, reliable independent sources are needed to indicate it is more than just rhetoric. John from Idegon (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support If the school's charter expressly mentions its mission in this way, it is clearly poverty related. But the discussion should apply to all schools in the network. Clean Copy^talk 12:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support - (invited by a bot) Any program that seeks to help low income people can be legitimately categorized as "poverty-related." I don't think that's an important distinction for this school, but the category is quite broad (and therefore not so meaningful) and it fits well enough. [Note: I see that some here consider this issue important, but coming here from the outside, it seems like consensus should not be so difficult as to require an RFC.] Jojalozzo (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - summoned by bot. This isn't the type of group one thinks of when thinking of poverty related organizations. I agree with 32.218.152.188 that by using this broad definition, every college and every employer would qualify for this list. And this should be on Talk:Cristo Rey Network. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Poverty-related organizations is a very broad category, hosting all sorts of organizations, and the designation itself seems very general to me. If there was a better way to direct readers to the Cristo Rey Network as a poverty-related effort, then that would suffice. Jzsj (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Notwithstanding, readers can already navigate to this school via Category:Poverty-related organizations → Category:Poverty-related organizations → Category:Cristo Rey Network → this article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Since this discussion applies to multiple schools, this discussion would be more appropriate at Category talk:Poverty-related organizations or Talk:Cristo Rey Network Billhpike (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Bill. Also, Jzsj, you only get to !vote once in an RfC. Not three times, including once on the oppose and twice in support. John from Idegon (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect Jzsj was confused by the example at WP:RFC. I've opened a discussion about updating the RFC instructions. See WT:RFC#Sample WikiText may be unclear? Billhpike (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to complete this issue with relation to this particular school, where it has arisen. Jzsj (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors have explained that this discussion applies to all of the schools in the network and thus it should not be made here. This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. We are not going to go through this discussion on each of the schools' pages. Since you ignored our advice then you should place a notification on the talk page of each of the affected schools so that other interested editors will be aware of this discussion. Meters (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Meters, as explained in my !vote above. Dealing with the way a specific editor in these conversations handles dispute resolution is getting past the point of AGF. Administrative intervention will soon be required. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've been dealing entirely with three identifiable editors on this issue, and it is clear that they agree with one another. I trust that an administrator will decide on the merits of the case. Jzsj (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That's about typical on a single school article, and this discussion will be open a month. John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand Jzsj's comment. There are 3 named editors and an IP who have opposed the RFC. There are other named editors (and IPs who are likely the same IP as the RFC IP) who have commented against the changes in the above threads. Unless there is some over riding policy issue (which seems unlikely to me) the RFC will be decided by consensus, and it may be closed by any uninvolved ediotor, not just an admin. If Jzsj is concerned that the input on the RFC is from the same editors who have already commented on this talk page then he shoudl have taken our advice and taken this to a more general venue. I also suggested above that he post notices of this discussion to the other affected school pages but he has not done so. Meters (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Note that Jzsj has notified others about this RFC. See WP:Christianity/Noticeboard/Urgent, Category talk:Poverty-related organizations‎, and User talk:JoeHebda. I asked Jzsj to post here about his canvassing, but he has not replied. Billhpike (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

On being made aware of the canvassing policy I removed the notice at Christianity. The notice at Poverty-related is a neutral notice of the question at what seems an appropriate place. If this is against an explicit Wikipedia policy, please remove it or give a reference to the policy. Sorry, I can't undo the Joe Hebda notice; I notified him as one whose edits on the article might be reverted, but he signifies no interest in entering this discussion. Jzsj (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to announcing this RFC at WP:WikiProject Christianity. I only ask that that you link to wherever this RFC is announced. Billhpike (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing with notifications, Jzsj. You've been cited CANVAS already. The announcement has to be neutral, which your announcement at Christianity wasn't (the level three twinkle warning image alone was enough to ensure that). And there needs to be a fair distribution. Generally, if you are going to notify projects, minimumly you need to notify all the projects that have claim on this article, which should be United States/Massachusetts, Schools and Catholicism. You use exactly the same wording in all notifications. I'm not objecting to the notification on the category talk page, as no one will see that. The only time that talk page was edited was to place the project banner in 2012. It's generally not a good idea to notify individuals, but not forbidden. You cannot however notify only individuals that you think will back your position, which notifying Joe definitely was. Usually, the only way to avoid an accusation of canvassing is to notify ALL the editors that have edited the article in the past X months. One other thing about canvassing; you cannot unring a bell. The damage is already done. Again, and now with policy based solid reasons, not just common sense, I'm going to ask you to undo the damage you've done. Go to an administrator, tell them what's transpired here and shut this down. Restart it on the Cristo Rey talk page, or better yet at the Education Project talk page. Father, you are getting very close to the point where you are going to get sanctioned here. Frankly it is only out of respect to your position in life that I haven't sought administrative intervention already. Instead I asked Tony to speak to you as an administrator. I don't want to see you topic banned from articles on parochial education, but that is where this is going to have to go if you don't start acting like a Wikipedian here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message for administrators. Since the few notifications produced no new participants in this discussion during their brief time of appearance, and since they no longer exist, it is not likely that any new participants who might arise have found their way here from these notifications. Jzsj (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the discussion should take place at the larger level, not here.Clean Copy^talk 12:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• My original purpose in adding this category was that some material indicative of the mission of the school and, giving underprivileged youth a better chance at a university education, was edited out of the school's article. What now seems most critical to me is that categories are not meant to be read from the school's article to the category but in reverse, simply and exclusively to direct people to the school article. And so I would agree that since the schools are in the subcategory Cristo Rey Network this is sufficient for people looking for poverty-related organizations to locate these schools. But I hope that all those editing articles on Cristo Rey schools will allow sufficient material establishing that they are indeed all poverty-related. Jzsj (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks after starting an RFC is far too late to be trying to explain or change things. I suggest that you read WP:BLUDGEON. Meters (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre-nominal and post-nominal

Off-topic discussion about Wikipedia policy & guidelines

Pre-nominals (Fr., Sr., Br.) and post-nominal designations (OSB, SJ, SSND, …) of religious affiliation of persons who run schools are very common in Wikipedia. The rationale for using them is to show that the leadership of a school remains in the hands of a representative of a diocese or religious congregation, and has not passed to lay control. Jzsj (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC) @Jzsj: I'm not sure if the community will agree with you, but I think your argument is reasonable. The fact that the leaders of an organization are members of a religious order seems reasonably encyclopedic. Could you wikilink the post-nominals to the religious order? Many people don't know that what initialisms like SSND or OSB stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC) WP:CREDENTIAL is perfectly clear: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor") should only be used in a Wikipedia article when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name ... (e.g. Ruth Westheimer, better known as Dr. Ruth ...)." Presumably "Sr. Maryalyce Gilfeather" is not a stage name. MOS:POSTNOM is equally clear: "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization." The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur is hardly a widely recognizable organization. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. 32.218.37.222 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)I completely disagree. If you want to use titles, start a discussion over at MOS to add clerical titles to the list of exceptions to our policy on not using titles (that list currently consists of military and heraldic titles). An article is not the place for that discussion. I doubt I'd oppose it if it were brought to question properly there. As far a post nominal go, the utility of them is questionable in an encyclopedia of general interest. If this were a religion encyclopedia, I could see it. It isn't. The majority of our readers aren't even Christian. The vast majority of Christians are not Catholic. I have absolutely no objection to linking the name of the order that runs a school in the article, or even the "affiliation" field in the infobox, but one editor's contention that tagging individuals with postnominals that indicate what order they belong to serves as some sort of shorthand is nonsense. It's meaningless information to the vast majority of our readers, and unduely emphasizes non notable individuals in an article about an institution. Not to mention allowing for religious postnominals opens the door to seeing "|principal=Joe Foo Ed.Dr, PhD, MD" on multiple school articles, content that does not serve any information purpose for the school and does serve the school's marketing effort. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Further on post nominal letters: note that the only place they are endorsed is in the lede of biographical articles. They have absolutely no place in a school article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Jzsz had said his motivation behind including the nominals is to idicate that the institutions leadership are not lay administrators. Assuming that sources can be found, I think it would be appropriate for the article to say something to the effect “The school was established by the Jesuits and all headmasters have been members of that order” BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC) By all means. If a reliable independent source can be found that says that, I'd thouroughly endorse that. I'd even be pleased to see a listing of those individuals, and I think it would suffice for the list only (not a claim that they were all Jesuits) to be self-sourced. But please leave the alphabet soup on the shelf in the pantry. John from Idegon (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC) I have no objection to a comment such as that in the article,. I agree that the various pre- and post-nominals were uninformative (to most readers) and against policy. Meters (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC) As to number 1, being a member of the clergy or of a religious organization is not the same as academic and professional degrees (which the clergy may possess but we're not arguing for their inclusion). In number 2 you are quoting an article on biographies, not on schools, and it also is speaking of academic degrees. One can learn from the link to "Sr." that it is not an academic degree. I should have linked "Sr." and "SNDdeN" to Nun and Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, as I have in the past. (I've just added these links in this discussion.) By adding these pre and post nominals, one easily learns who is in charge of the day-to-day running of the school, which matters to most of those who are interested in the school. I am hearing no good reason for removing these pre and post nominals from the hundreds of school articles that contain them. I don't agree that post-nominals of a religious congregation should be equated with honorifics, and when they are linked to the organization they give succinct indication of who is running the school. I'm willing to go to all the school articles I can find and link the pre and post nominals in the infoboxes to assist those who don't know what "Fr." or "Sr." stands for. Must "Rev." also be linked, or is that one clear? Of course, in the past, the directive that what's in infoboxes should be explained in the article has been used to cover the religious pre and post nominals and the omission of references in the infoboxes. Jzsj (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC) WP:CREDENTIAL speaks to TITLES, not degrees, e.g., Dr., Sr., Fr., Prof., etc. Sorry you don't understand the difference. ("Dr." is a title; "MD" is a degree.) But, then, maybe you don't want to know the difference. ("I am hearing no good reason for removing these pre and post nominals from the hundreds of school articles that contain them.") 32.218.152.110 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC) As to number 1, the section you refer to is actually entitled "Academic titles" and speaks of academic credentials, not religious affiliation. The only examples they give are related to academic degrees: "Dr." and "Professor". They never mention Fr. or Sr. which are all that's under discussion here. Jzsj (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Facts that clarify the program

I propose to add this rewording of what was removed, and would like to know which criteria in Wikipedia, if any, would disallow the inclusion of such facts.
A four-student team, one from each grade, share an entry-level job at a corporation, each working one day of every week, five days each month. The students, from the age of 14, earn about $19/hour in the corporate world to cover 60% of their tuition. The Notre Dame students have been described as a "valuable resource" in support of other employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 14:37, January 30, 2018 (UTC)

References

• Oppose that in its entirety. Material sourced to Globe does not verify to the article. Material sourced to the corporate website includes an unattributed quote and it comes from an unreliable source. John from Idegon (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support The Boston Globe has the following statement: "Notre Dame students work five days per month at a private company to earn 60 percent of their $12,000 tuition". Over nine months of the school year, that comes to close to $20/hour. And as to the statement on the MFA Companies website, I don't understand why we must be sceptical of the veracity of a corporation making a modest claim about their experience with the Cristo Rey program. When we include material from a school's website we don't say it's unreliable because it isn't attributed to one person. The statement is a local example, similar to what is said in the references contained on the Cristo Rey Network page. Jzsj (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Globe article is it stated "A four-student team, one from each grade, share an entry-level job at a corporation, each working one day of every week, five days each month", nor anything like that which would verify the copy I just quoted. You are obviously synthesizing that with something else. On the other, corporations have websites to serve their purposes, not to provide facts about tangentially related topics. All a corporate website can be used for is to reference indisputable facts about the company, not some copy about a school. See WP:RS. As the Globe article is in part on point for the subject of this article (once you eliminate the self serving quotes from the school staff and the parts about other schools), perhaps another editor may be willing to add some accurately paraphrased content based on it. John from Idegon (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What fact do you question from which the statement I add is a helpful conclusion? Do you just want proof that they have a 9-month school year? Jzsj (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Jzsj: As a compromise, I would suggest incorporating this doctoral disseration about the work study program in the article about the Cristo Rey Network. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This statement is already in the article, supported by the Boston Globe citation: "A four-student team, one from each grade, share an entry-level job at a corporation, each working one day of the week, five days each month. Student earnings cover 60% of their tuition." Anything beyond that (student wages, employer blurb) is unencyclopedic promotional fluff. The dissertation could be a source of info for the article, as long as its findings and conclusions aren't cherry-picked. 32.218.46.254 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the Globe article does it state that 4 student teams work one job. What is the source for that, Jzsj? Please provide a citation for that. John from Idegon (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • You'll find it at and explained on YouTube, both on Notre Dame's website. Jzsj (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • So, no reliable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The educational model is best fleshed out at Cristo Rey Network, for which there are likely to be some reliable sources. (YouTube isn't one of them.) 32.218.46.254 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Further, 32, Bill is proposing adding content based on the dissertation to a different article, not this one. I'll reserve comment on the source for discussion at another talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. The dissertation would work as a source for Cristo Rey Network, but not for any of the individual school articles. 32.218.46.254 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I overlooked signing my original statement at the top of this section, and my signing it late was disallowed. But I fully claim the statement and two references. Jzsj (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It has already been signed for you. Meters (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• The bot signed it for you and added the time in UTC. You reverted the bot and added the time in who knows what time zone. More disruption. John from Idegon (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I signed it but forgot to substitute the template. Meters (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose That's too much detail, and the quote is just PR puffery. No company involved in such a program is going to say less than that. As has been pointed out,the gist of that material is already in the article. I think it's sufficient to say that the students work in industry while in school, following the Cristo Rey model, to earn part of their tuition. Further details belong in the Cristo Rey article Meters (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support / use alternative wording added in my previous edit. John from Idegon has needlessly removed an edit that I made without knowledge of this discussion. I've provided mildly different wording that uses the materials available from the school to leverage the Globe article and describe in concise detail how the program works. Additionally, the needless revert removed details of how tuition works; while the infobox lists an MSRP of $12,500, the actual price paid is $3,200 per family, defrayed through contributions and (mostly through) work study. This is an essential element of the business model that this school uses for student families and these details are entirely lost if readers have to search elsewhere to find it.
  I'm not sure what cause is being defended here as the sources have been provided to back up the four-person team concept. Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would support Alansohn's addition, but I find the addition I propose at the start to be a succinct way to indicate a very impressive fact about the school, briefly clarifying its very nature, without a lot of words. I would like to retain it. Jzsj (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj. we've already explained why your version is not acceptable.

Alansohn, I don't see the undo of your edit as needless. It's contested material that is under discussion on the talk page, with most editors not supporting its inclusion. The fact that you were not aware of this talk page discussion does not mean that your changes should be considered separately from this discussion of the material.

I agree that the clarification of the actual fees charged is a good addition: $12,500 tuition with approximately 60% from the work study program, $3,200 from the family, and the rest from grants and donations. Note that we need to clarify if all students qualify for this rate or if some do not qualify for the grants and donations since the Globe ref states "Families are charged $2,900, but most receive financial aid covered by a mix of grants and donations" (emphasis mine, and the $2,900 value presumably differs from the curren t$3,200 because this ref is from 2015).

I still think the details of the work-study program would be better covered in the Cristo Rey program article. Meters (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

But then you could argue that the details of the program in general do not apply to this school, since each school sets up its own specific tuition. The critical factor to be recognized here is that Cristo Rey schools are created precisely to serve students who would not otherwise be able to afford a university education. Why must we conceal the details of what this means at a given school? Jzsj (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the tuition information is useful in this article. Did you read what I wrote, or are you just arguing that anything other than your preferred version is unacceptable? And please don't try to shoehorn other issues in. This thread is about the work-study program details that were removed, not about whether the article should discuss what you consider the purpose of all Cristo Rey schools. Meters (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a fulsome coverage of "Facts that clarify the program" as necessary to support the need for the school to be explicitly categorized as a "Poverty-related organization". I appreciate your willingness to clarify the tuition issue but I don't see why readers should have to go to another article to find out how the program works. Jzsj (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We already have an open RFC (started by you) on the issue of whether the school should be categorized as a "Poverty-related organization". It is not appropriate to attempt to re-argue that issue here. Meters (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Plain puffery and promotion. As is is a school, it is enough to add that part of their program is to provide training-jobs. And not all the details. The Banner talk 09:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please review the documentation on the Cristo Rey Network, where you learn that the original purpose was not to provide job training but to earn money to subsidize their education. Jzsj (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, this thread is not about the original purpose of the Cristo Rey network schools. Meters (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The original purpose remains very much a factor in the existence of each Cristo Rey school. The network subsidized a feasibility study (p. 375) on whether Notre Dame Cristo Rey would qualify for its Network before the school was founded. Jzsj (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet again, this thread is not about the original purpose of the Cristo Rey schools or network. You asked about including specific wording about the work program, and we answered you. Your suggested wording says nothing about any original purpose for the the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 23:04, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

Translations for non-Americans, please

Sorry to interrupt the discussions -- please could I clarify something? The article talks about the school being "for students who might otherwise not receive a college education". My understanding of American English is that "college" means "university", i.e. education at an age later than secondary-level high school.

The article then immediately goes on to say "Student earnings cover 60% of their tuition".

The Wikipedia article tuition redirects to Tuition payments, which proceeds to talk almost entirely about university-level tuition costs and payments. I have heard Americans saying "tuition" in the same way, i.e. meaning specifically payments for tertiary-level, university educations.

The context of the article, however -- and the discussion here -- seems to imply that the "tuition" costs being talked about are for secondary-level education at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School itself. Not for university tuition costs. Am I right in making this implication?

Thank you MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that the earnings are used to fund secondary level education for students that are mostly between 14 to 18 years old. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The vast majority of secondary education in the US is publicly funded and tuition free, but their is a significant number of parochial schools (like this) and non secular private schools that are tuition funded. John from Idegon (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will make some clarifications -- minor additions -- to the article to make this clearer, although I might wait until the current content disagreements have cooled a little, as they concern the same areas of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A nuanced point: Some Catholics reserve the term "parochial" for schools run by individual parishes, as opposed to schools like this one that are run by a religious order for students throughout the diocese. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point, Bill. And thanks for your patience, MPS1992. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I blame the Britishers for everyone's ENGVAR problems... they were the ones who introduced a system where the best private schools in England are described as "public schools", and public schools are described some other way, except for those that are not, and so on :) MPS1992 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Campus ministry program

John from Indegon It's not clear why you reverted the following credible info sourced to the school's website. I propose it be restored:

Campus ministry

Students all make a one-day retreat each year and an over-night retreat in their senior year. Juniors and seniors are given the opportunity to make a three-day Kairos retreat. Students also participate in several community service projects. Jzsj (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

If this article were about a British school, this would be written "The school runs various school trips and community service projects." MPS1992 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In short, if it isn't important enough for someone other than sources connected to the school to write about, it isn't important enough to include. Again, this smacks of PR, not knowledge. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Students do public service and may go on school trips. Nothing particularly unusual about that. Its a religious school so one of the trips is a multi-day religious retreat, which is a bit different. I wouldn't object to mentioning it if there is an independant reliable source and a significant proportion of the eligible students attends, otherwise this is PR material that does not belong on Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I question your position that activities that are mentioned on the school's website might not be included in the Wikipedia article. The extent of spiritual and service activities does clarify the religious philosophy of the school. Why all the emphasis on sports activities (that don't say much about a school) and exclusion of significant non-sports activities. I note that on Chassell Township School that @John from Idegon: created on 2017-01-18, the only reference to the sports sponsored by the school is to Chassell Township Schools District (given as the school's website) that runs this as its only school. Jzsj (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It is common to use sources who are independent (not in any way related to the subject) and reliable (no social media). The school website is by no means independent.

To ask a nasty question: how far are you involved in the Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School? I get the idea that there is a Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 13:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anyone at the school and I've never been there. This discussion from the start has been about the Schools Project interpretation and toughening of Wikipedia's general principles and guidelines, bereft of the "common sense" approach which would understand that criteria should not be toughened for schools that will never join the six such schools that are presently in the featured school listing. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for this larger issue involved here.) Jzsj (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in my opinion the way you sound and act makes me think of a marketing department. The Banner talk 13:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Activities

John from Indegon It's not clear why you reverted the following credible info sourced to the school's website. I propose it be restored:

Activities

A select group from the students act as Student Ambassadors, assisting at school activities, helping recruit freshmen, and representing the school to the public. Jzsj (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Can you think of any high school in the world where some students do not assist at school activities or represent the school to the public? MPS1992 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with MPS1992. Further, we are not here to report on what the school says about itself. Excepting indisputable facts that serve only to inform and are not available elsewhere, we should not be using sources tied to the school. They have their webpage to communicate what they want. An encyclopedia is constructed of information paraphrased from reliable independent sources. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing of note here. The wikipedia page is not the school's webpage and should not repeat this type of PR material. Meters (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need to do here is to focus on the added task of student ambassadors in a Cristo Rey School where there's the difficult task of identifying thirteen-year-olds who will be able to hold a job in a corporation: it is notable that the school depends on its best students to assist with this task. Jzsj (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The consensus in all these discussions is clearly that for any content other than bare indisputable facts, any and all content needs independent sources. What we need to do is focus on making source based arguments rather than these pointless rhetorical arguments. They are rarely persuasive, and it's abundantly clear they will not be here. One editor is simply filibustering, wasting multiple other editor's time. Further, OTHERSTUFF is rarely a persuasive argument either. And considering you've taken (completely out of context, I might add) edits I and I alone have made, it's bordering on WP:STALKING and needs to stop now. But for the school in Northern Michigan, a reliable secondary source is readily available to source most of the content (MHSAA.COM) and the reason I chose the school source was that their hockey team, likely the most important part of the topic, is a coop team with another school and MHSAA lists coop teams under the school that employs the coach. Newspaper sources are available that can verify that. And you should look VERY closely at TVCS. I have a declarable conflict of interest on that article as my son attends that school. I haven't declared it because there is no copy in it that is challengable from a NPOV view. But considering we've been arguing with one editor who happens to be a Jesuit priest about this article about a Jesuit school for three weeks now with little significant support, I cannot say the same is true here. Well it is now, but the editor who has the conflict is the one pushing the poorly sourced POV content and is the one wasting other editor's time with pointless rhetorical arguments. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note the freedom with which featured schools use their own websites to reference long sections on their activities, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Examples from featured schools. While the discussion on this page arose because of gross reverts without any detailed referencing, the perspective that has been defended by those who are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools can impact all school articles and should be settled before such restrictive criteria are applied to all school articles. Jzsj (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Demographics

John from Indegon I had taken from a demographics website the significant data for this school. You reverted my edit and proposed that my concise mention of the only significant statistic here be disallowed. You say: "No, it is more meaningful to the POV you want to push. Stop screwing around with a standard presentation of statistics." Your "standard presentation of statistics" in a separate, major section by itself seems to me to go against the policy that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article ... inhibit the flow of the prose". Your insistence that there be uniformity among all school articles in this will make not better but rather less intelligible articles. I suggest that more focused and intelligible articles should be Wikipedia's POV. What I had in the article and propose to restore is:

Of the 274 students enrolled in 2015–2016, students of Hispanic descent constituted 90.1% of the student body, which reflects the racial mix of minorities in Lawrence. Jzsj (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Remember, as used by the census bureau, the term "Hispanic" refers to ethnic background, not race BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of them are from Puerto Rico, if we want to include that. Jzsj (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

One of the stated purposes of Wikipedia is to provide almanac type information. Extracting a single piece of data is WP:UNDUE. Again, the obvious consensus that is shown by the way it is generally done on similar articles is a sufficient consensus to do it that way on this article and I see no compelling arguments to change it. We generally only mention differences between census data for the area and enrollment data for the school if they are different, not if they are the same. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A procedure note: If you wish to ping an editor, you do it by using the ping template, thus: {{ping|username, spelled correctly}}. If you need to list references in a section on a talk page, you do so by using Template:Talk reflist, not the same template you use on an article. Talk reflist only gathers references from the particular section it is applied to. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think it might be worth compromising on this particular issue, even if not ideal by WP:V standards... a 90%+ ratio of students from a minority in the country in question, would be kinda weird and merits some sort of explanation. Let's source it as best we can. MPS1992 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the explanation? I don't see one. Do you mean the census data? Also, I can't ever see a reason not to list all the NCES statistics. Only listing some of them--that would look weird. If we list the entire NCES stats, the 90% figure is there. As to adding the census data, on a private school, that is problematic, as most private schools have no set attendance zone. So how do we know that the census dataset is a data match to the NCES data? John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, your link to the census data isn't working. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If your proposal is to list all of the census data, I have no objection to that. Although I do object to listing any item where the total is "0%", as some articles do. MPS1992 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are listing any demographics info then cite and quote the entire NCES demographics data set, as we normally do. There';s no reason to cherry-pick just one particular piece of the data to list. Meters (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please give a reference for your claim that Wikipedia is intent on presenting information like an almanac would. And your reference to WP:UNDUE is of no help here since its speaking of including minority opinions, not of a school's preference for serving minorities. Your "obvious consensus" and "way things are generally done" are part of the issue here, whether the Schools Project should impose policies and guidelines beyond those approved throughout Wikipedia. Should a very small group of editors in the Schools Project be able to impose formatting and almanac-type presentation when this is not required by the overall policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Also you've not responded to my observation that "standard presentation of statistics" in a separate, major section by itself seems to me to go against the policy that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article ... inhibit the flow of the prose".

Also, I note that the article you created on Treasure Valley Christian School still contains the section: The student population at TVCS as of 2009-2010 was approximately 90% white, 7% Hispanic and 2% Asian. I'm asking no more than your tolerance of this succinct way of describing enrollment, without a bulleted list and leaving out the zeros. Jzsj (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The main difference is that the percentages of the student population of Treasure Valley Christian School are backed up by a source. The source used in this article do not contain the percentages, making it fall foul of Wikipedia:Original Research. The Banner talk 12:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Not so. The source for the school's demographics are given as numbers which become percentages through simple arithmetic. Jzsj (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:CALC BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• This matter will eventually blow up into a WP-wide controversy. While for many years the Census differentiated Negro or Black from white, all of the categories are now self-reported; Latino or Hispanic is whatever the reporter claims -- white for some Spaniards and descendants, brown for indigenous people from South and Central America. People of color is the most vague of terms. As BillHPike points out, one should be cautious when using WP:CALC with population statistics. Rhadow (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

So am I correct to say that now the only difference we have is whether to present the NCES demographics as prose, rather than a bulleted list? If that's the case, I have no problem with it. Just please present it in the order the source does, and omit the 0 entries as we would usually with prose. Any objections? John from Idegon (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

In prose, I think it is would read easier if we listed the groups in descending order, with multiracial students being reported in a independent clause at the end of the sentence. For example 9x% of the schools students are hispanic, x% asian, y % black, and z% white, with t% being of two or more races BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, Bill. I'd say go ahead and do it, as it's simply a change from one accepted style to another. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it more important that you change the demographics sentence (like the one I propose) in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Examples from featured schools, since according to Wikipedia policy these featured schools "are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Jzsj (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am not in favor of a guideline or whatever, that eliminates zero from demographic descriptions. Such a suggestion has a way of becoming cast in concrete. I have been working on a set of schools that have zero white students. The zero is the point. Rhadow (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, that the guidelines for schools should not go beyond general policy in Wikipedia, and that where there is a statistic like zero white students (which characterizes inner schools in some cities) that this be made clear, whether from a complete demographics list or from explicit mention in the running text. In the case here of Notre Dame CR there are no native Americans in the school since there are hardly any in the city. Cristo Rey schools almost invariably follow the poverty demographic of their area, but with a possible preference for Catholics, which would in such cases favor Latinos. From the FAQs on the network website: "Students do not have to be Catholic to enroll at a Cristo Rey school. Our schools admit students inclusive of all faiths and cultures. On average, 40% of Cristo Rey students are not Catholic;... (57% Hispanic, 34% Black, 6% Other, and 3% Caucasian)." Jzsj (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like at least two participants here are in agreement that not listing non-existent students would be wrong. I wish you all luck in your efforts. MPS1992 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

My point was that where listing the zero serves a purpose it should be done, but not required in the case of Notre Dame for the reason I give just above. Jzsj (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Historical background

Some of the discussion above has dealt with whether the mission of this school is indeed poverty-related. Sending readers to the Cristo Rey Network page is unhelpful since, while the Network can explain its purpose overseen by its board, the claim is best exemplified by evidence from the articles of each school in the network. To do this I added entirely new material to the article on the historical background of the founding of Cristo Rey in Lawrence, material that clearly lays out the poverty-related purpose of the school. This was reverted with insistence that the new material be discussed here. And so for the sake of discussion I reproduce below the material that was reverted.

(Proposed addition)

Lawrence is an old mill town experiencing financial problems, with one of the highest poverty rates in Massachusetts (29.2%). In 2011 this would lead to the unprecedented takeover of the whole, “chronically underachieving” Lawrence public school district by the state.

The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur have as their central mission to work “with and among people living in poverty”.They turned to the Cristo Rey work-study model of schools, that had originated in 1996 with Cristo Rey Jesuit High School in Chicago to give disadvantaged students a better chance at a college education. In 2004 the sisters opened the seventh school in the Cristo Rey Network, with start-up money from the Cassian foundation, who also subsidized the feasibility studies that preceded the founding of Cristo Rey schools.

References

(End of proposed addition) – Jzsj (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC) improved book footnote 14:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTHESIS and off topic for this article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 09:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I have expressed my concerns about advertising earlier and this is another case of it. The Banner talk 09:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The history of the Lawrence public schools is irrelevant to this article.
2. The mission of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, an international community, is irrelevant to this article about a single school in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
3. The 60 Minutes report is about the Chicago Cristo Rey school, not the Lawrence one.
4. The one-paragraph ad for More than a Dream does not support the assertion that precedes the citation: that the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur opened the Lawrence school in 2004 with funding from the Cassian Foundation.^[3]
5. More than a Dream is about the Chicago school, not the Lawrence one.^[4]
6. The ad for More than a Dream is not a reliable source.^[5]

I concur with BillHPike that the proposed paragraphs are off-topic and WP:SYNTHESIS. 32.218.40.108 (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

And I concur with both Bill and 32. It's beginning to smell like the color nine. Beam me up, Scottie. John from Idegon (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary for the distinction between synthesis and summary. In line with that, "it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception".
Also find at that page the statement "Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article". How does giving background, that explains the very apparent reason for the founding of the school, not improve our understanding of the school, more than any mission statement of the school, or of the Cristo Rey Network, could do? Jzsj (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that your quote is talking about "improving" the article. I hope you have noticed that some editors here are not convinced that your edits are improvements. The Banner talk 15:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

^ Thanks for pointing out the reference to the book's publisher. I struck out that reference and referenced the book itself, using Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. If it does not help to reference this note after your comments referring to the previous footnote, then please remove this note after your comments. Jzsj (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As to #1 above, if the public schools were in great shape, one might be skeptical of the sisters' motive in founding a Cristo Rey school.
As to #2 above, this is background which is corroborated by the other data and references in the article.
As to #3 above, the Chicago school is the archetype of the model that the other schools in the Network have imitated. Jzsj (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)