Jump to content

Talk:West Ridge Academy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Utah Boys Ranch)

MormonGulag.com

[edit]

This external link is now back in the article. As far as I can tell, it was removed earlier as not being a reliable source for material. However, I'm not sure if there's been a discussion on whether or not it is appropriate as an external link. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently formatted incorrectly so I'm taking it out again. --Wlmg (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Bennion

[edit]

On the history section, it is claimed that Lowell Bennion founded the Utah Boys Ranch in 1964. The following book is listed as a reference for this claim: Bradford, Mary Lythgoe (1995). Lowell L. Bennion: Teacher, Counselor, Humanitarian. Dialogue Foundation. pp. 214–215. ISBN 1560850817. http://books.google.com/?id=34wagn75d-oC&printsec=frontcover.

This book can be read online. Nowhere in the book does it say that Lowell Bennion founded the Utah Boys Ranch. If you can find a mention of Bennion's involvement with the Utah Boys Ranch in that source, please advise what page number you found it on. The book credits Bennion for founding the Teton Boys Ranch in Idaho in 1962. Bennion lived in Idaho from 1962 until the 1980s, so it seems very unlikely that he would be able to start a Boys Ranch in Utah while living and running his own Boys Ranch in Idaho. See this reference: http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/b/BENNION,LOWELL.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlySquid (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you when you asked on my page, that is also sourced to this [1] newspaper article. It's directly referred to in the final paragraph of the article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I told you, that is an exact quote from the original Wikipedia article. The better source, Bennion's biography, makes it clear that he could not possibly start the Utah Boys Ranch / West Ridge Academy. --EarlySquid (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep this here, rather than repeated on my page. You have an interesting theory about this article being drawn from the Wikipedia page, do you have any proof of that? Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. And yes, I do. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ridge_Academy&oldid=294816438#cite_note-2 --EarlySquid (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to show with that DIFF? I can't see anything that shows the article was taken from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Dayewalker (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be impossible for it to be the other way around since the same exact sentence appeared on the Wikipedia article on June 6, 2009 while the article you cite was published on April 17, 2010. Did you miss that? --EarlySquid (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because the same simple text occurred in a Wikipedia article doesn't prove that the newspaper article lifted the material directly from Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're being fair, but okay. It definitely proves that it appeared on the Wikipedia page first. It strongly suggests that it was lifted directly from the Wikipedia page, or the original reference, which was the blog that was deemed unreliable as a source. Since there is no other place that that exact sentence appears before 6/7/2009, I think it is more than reasonable to not use this as a reference for Lowell Bennion starting the Utah Boys Ranch. Do you have a better reference for Bennion's involvement at West Ridge Academy? A primary source, perhaps? If not, I think we should assume that Bennion's biographers were correct. --EarlySquid (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, had a student of mine submitted a paper that used the same exact sentence (also known as plagiarism) as an older Wikipedia article, I would have to report them to the Dean. --EarlySquid (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for more opinions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here [2]. Dayewalker (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of being fair, you should also mention that Bennion's biographers put him in Idaho from 1962 to the 80s, and never once mention the Utah Boys Ranch. I think that deserves more weight than one plagiarized sentence in a newspaper article. --EarlySquid (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest available reference clearly states that William L. Hutchinson led the group of men who started the Utah Boys Ranch. "Headed by Dr. William L. Hutchinson, director of pupil personnel services for Granite School District, the group is establishing a boys’ ranch southeast of Kearns."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=U0EOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0X8DAAAAIBAJ&dq=Utah%20Boys%20Ranch&pg=7023%2C524888

I've added the reference to the article. --EarlySquid (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If certain editors are dead-set on including Bennion's name on this article, even though the source says he "supported a similar venture" to his own, not started a similar venture, I propose detailing Bennion's involvement more thoroughly. Bennion petitioned the LDS Church for $10,000 to start the facility. Does anyone object to adding the portion about Bennion petitioning the LDS Church for money, and then receiving $10,000 from David O Mckay for seed money? --EarlySquid (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bennion's name is included because the statement is backed up by numerous sources (his biography - mainly p 215, a couple of news articles [3][4][5], and even the early news article you provide lists him as vice president of the UBR group) which indicate that Bennion's involvement wasn't just casual support. As for expanding the history section, I say have at it, of course being guided by the reliable sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of board members

[edit]

The religion of some board members is mentioned in the article. Usually a person's religion is irrelevant in a list like this. The religion statement may be seen as an attempt to draw the readers to a conclusion about a connection between the school and the LDS Church. Any thoughts? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their religion is listed on their own personal Wikipedia pages, so I don't see what the big deal is about mentioning it on this article too. Also, I don't think it's very irrelevant considering that there is already mention of the connection between the LDS Church and the facility in the article, and many places on the Internet. The board members are members of the religion, so it's not exactly incorrect to state it. What's the issue? --EarlySquid (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source has stated that all of the school's board members are Mormon, that might be worth including in the article, with a citation to the source. Absent a statement by a reliable source, it seems like non-neutral POV (see WP:NPOV for why this is important), it's likely to be original research (at least in part), and it's a potential WP:BLP issue. Additionally, EarlySquid's comment about other Wikipedia pages (which Wikipedia cannot cite as sources, BTW) suggests that the religion of nonnotable board members may not be verified. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't state that all of the facilities board members are Mormon, so your point is moot. The board members listed (including the advisory board) are very notable Mormons. Orlady, will you be working on the other Wikipedia pages to remove mention of their religion? --EarlySquid (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I commented, I was aware that you had recently edited the article to say "The board of directors is composed of prominent Mormon Utah residents including...". That wording certainly indicated the whole board was composed of Mormons. The edits to this article were coming pretty fast there, so my comment may have been behind the times by the time I made it...
Regardless of timing, the wording that was added to this article on the religion of the board members had the look of POV-pushing. It's pretty clear from the article as a whole that the institution has a strong Mormon connection; there is no encyclopedic purpose in repeating that point throughout the article. (Furthermore, anyone with more than minimal familiarity with Utah or the Mormon religion should realize that most Utahns are members of the LDS church, so many readers are likely to assume that when they read "Utah residents.") It is true that the articles about Shawn Bradley and LaVar Christensen identify their religion, but it is not prominently highlighted -- the lead sentences of those articles do not identify them as a "Mormon basketball player" and a "Mormon politician." The wording in which you described them as "prominent Mormon Utah residents" gives their religion far more prominence than either of the articles about them.
All across Wikipedia, you will find sensitivity to undue emphasis on the religion of people who aren't religious leaders. As a general rule, Wikipedia articles should not describe people as Jewish lawyers, Lutheran businessmen, or Mormon basketball players. Religious affiliation is reported (if sourced), but not emphasized. --Orlady (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their religion is not "prominently highlighted" in this article either. If anything, it is extremely understated. Furthermore, there are other prominent Mormons on this article whose religion is not mentioned (i.eChris Buttars) at all. I'm still failing to see where your objection comes from. It seems like you are suggesting that because most people who live in Utah are Mormon, it should be assumed that the board of directors are all Mormons and thus religion should not at all be mentioned. Is that what you are suggesting? Since the whole Mormon thing is part of the "controversy," I think it is more than relevant to cite referenced religious affiliations. All three of the board members that were identified as prominent Mormons identify themselves as such. I doubt they would have any objection to being identified as such on this article. --EarlySquid (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LDS AFFILIATION AND POV PROBLEMS This is a highly controversial article primarily due to a small number of individuals with extreme POV problems. An easy example here: The final paragraph "Although the Academy professes to be nondenominational[3][5][29] and open to all regardless of religious affiliation, former students and staff at the academy allege there is a connection with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The tone here "Although...." and "alleges..." makes this sound like the Academy is trying to hide something. The Academy publishes its donations and benefits each year in its 501C3 tax statements which are public records. Prominent among donors is often the LDS church. There is no effort to hide the donations. There is no verifiable business affiliation, joint venture, partnership, ownership or equity arrangement with the LDS church, only an affinity and donation relationship. Several other academies receive similar donations such as Liahona Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liahona_Academy) but are not labled by editors as this academy. In a state where more than 60% of the population is believed to be LDS (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah - Utah is the most religiously homogeneous state in the Union. Approximately 60% of Utahns are reported to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which greatly influences Utah culture and daily life), it is not surprising that many board members of one of the longest standing academies for troubled kids are LDS and that many staff and employees are LDS. The tone here is strongly POV tainted as if affiliation is a bad thing. Changing this to "West Ridge Academy receives regular attention from and donations from the LDS Church" is neutral. The Although and allegation terms are unacceptably POV as if the affinity is negative. West Ridge also received regular, generous donations from a number of other institutions. Why are they not cited and listed? Could it be that the editor is only biased against the LDS church and wants to negate the good done by its involvement? This requires edit and fixing. Doonray (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

[edit]

Footnote 19 goes nowhere - please update or remove Doonray (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of talk about reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for this article. I see that the blog strugglingteens.com is referenced all throughout this article. Clearly, this is a biased source and I don't see how it could possible meet the standards of a reliable source. It seems to fit the criteria listed here perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources --EarlySquid (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The strugglingteens.com website is not an unreliable source. It can be properly considered a publication, entitled Woodbury Reports (and is cited as such in many of the articles that cite it). The ownership and authorship of the website's content are clearly identified, the website has been online for years, and the owner is a professional with a reputation to uphold. The website claims not to be affiliated with any individual institution or its operators, and it publishes signed reviews and visit reports on various institutions, as well as press releases. The signed visit report on a 2006 visit West Ridge Academy represents an independent source of information about West Ridge. The strugglingteens visit reports often seem unrealistically upbeat, but that does not diminish their value as sources of independent objective information (and, anyone, the encyclopedia article should be about the institution, not about opinions on it). --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me the difference between Cafety.org and strugglingteens.com. The ownership and authorship of Cafety.org are clearly identified, the website has been online for years, and the owners have professional reputations to uphold. The website claims not to be affiliated with any individual institution or its operators, and it publishes signed reports, as well as press releases. It seems like you are struggling with a bias here. Furthermore, strugglingteens.com is an educational consultant firm. They do business with the facility in question. The POV of the website is clearly promotional and self-serving. Did you review this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources yet?

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field."

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Can you site any third-party publications?

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,"

"# the material is not unduly self-serving;

  1. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);"

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion."

--EarlySquid (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the Woodbury Report a "publication" is laughable. Clearly you haven't looked into it very thoroughly: "Lon Woodbury offers a nationwide referral service for parents..." I know of plenty of websites that publish newsletters that shouldn't be considered reliable sources (i.e Cafety.org). --EarlySquid (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the template in the article, it looks incongruous atop an article with as many cited sources as this one has. If the objection is to one source, the inline template {{rs}} could be used next to the citation for that source (put it just before the "</ref>" tag).
  • The problems between Wikipedia and the cafety.org website are not with the site per se, but with some of the ways it has been linked or cited (not necessarily in this article).
  • WP:EL allows for an entity's official site to be a listed "External link" in the article about that entity, but the policy does not allow sites of survivor groups and other opponent organizations to get the same treatment. Accordingly, when Cafety.org is listed under "External links" in articles about specific schools and RTCs, the link gets deleted.
  • Anonymously contributed content such as wikis and forums is not a reliable source.
  • When the text of a news-media story is republished on a site like cafety.org or strugglingteens.com, that republication does not carry the same authority as publication on the original site. (And strugglingteens.com normally links to the website of the original publication instead of reproducing the content on its own website.)
  • Defamatory allegations need to be treated much more carefully than plain-vanilla objective information. CAFETY and its sister organizations sometimes are cited in support of statements saying that a particular entity mistreats its students. While it often is appropriate for a Wikipedia article to report that former students have filed a lawsuit alleging mistreatment, Wikipedia cannot present the allegations as if they were fact. As a result, some statements sourced to CAFETY often get deleted. In contrast, most of the information sourced to strugglingteens in this article is objective and pretty uncontroversial -- founding date, name change, the fact that the institution represents itself as nondenominational, and a brief description of the Sunshine Solutions day program. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of coming to a consensus and removing the questionable references tag, I propose removing the strugglingteens.com references. The nature of the website and it's reliability are questionable, and there really isn't anything in this article that depends on that specific reference, even though it is cited three different times throughout the article. Also, calling it the "Woodbury Report" instead of strugglingteens.com makes it like a legitimate publication instead of what it really is. Can't we just remove it and allow for the other, more verifiable references? I also agree with you regarding the CAFETY/Orato.com references being changed. I don't see any problem with that. --EarlySquid (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you (apparently) don't like Strugglingteens.com does not make it an unreliable source. Please note that it is not being quoted as a source of opinion, but rather as a third-party description of the program (written by someone who probably doesn't live in Utah, even). Since the owner of the website is incorporated under the name "Woodbury Reports" and publishes a newsletter (in PDF form on the website) by that name, that name should be included in reference citations. --Orlady (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please try not to make this personal and imply that I do or don't like strugglingteens.com. I demonstrated in my original remarks why this website does not meet the standards for a reliable source per Wikipedia's own standards. Just because you seem to want strugglingteens.com to appear as a reference does not mean that it qualifies as such. In fact, as I demonstrated, it does not. Furthermore, the strugglingteens.com reference adds nothing to the article. Everything that it says (i.e the facility is nondenominational) can be found using better, primary sources. Again, the wikipedia standards say that a self published source may be used IF "it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);"--EarlySquid (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where on this page it has been "demonstrated" that strugglingteens.com is not a reliable source. Strugglingteens.com has been registered as a domain name for nearly 10 years (it's pretty stable). As I tried to point out above, the fact that it names its owners and authors gives it the kind of "meaningful editorial oversight" mentioned on WP:V. It is currently cited as a source in 35 articles on Wikipedia. It is cited in those articles as a third-party source of information about various RTCs, therapeutic boarding schools, etc., as well as a republisher of press releases about these programs. Please note that wP:V indicates that the more contentious the content, the more reliable the source must be. I think we would agree that strugglingteens.com would not be a good source if it were cited to support statements about the quality of the services provided by Woodbury Reports (including Lon Woodbury) or by specific programs its describes, but as a source of objective information about a program, it is pretty reliable -- and far superior to the information that's self-published by the program itself. For what it's worth, the only time its suitability appears to have been discussed on a noticeboard here seems to have been Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family Foundation School, where no one seems to have cast doubts on its reliability. Apparently it has never been discussed at WP:RSN. --Orlady (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep ignoring what the Wikipedia policy is on Reliable Sources? Again, here is why it shouldn't be considered a reliable source (I provided these reasons earlier):

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field."

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Can you site any third-party publications?

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources --EarlySquid (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see myself as "ignoring" the policy on reliable sources. Based on my several years of experience at Wikipedia (and tens of thousands of edits), I think I understand the policies and guidelines pretty well and I believe that this source is sufficiently reliable for its use in this article. If you want additional perspectives on this, I suggest that you post a query at the reliable sources noticeboard -- WP:RSN. Be sure to post a link to your query here, so that other contributors are aware of it. --Orlady (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring it by failing to acknowledge or address what the policy clearly states (congratulations, by the way, for spending several years editing this website). Again, here is what it states:

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources

Are you going to ignore what the policy says about self-published sources being used as information about themselves, or explain why this self-published source is different? Otherwise, it seems like we kreep talking past each other. Another editor already said that they wouldn't object to removing that source, so it seems like you are the only editor who is adamant about this self-published source appearing on this article (even though there are plenty of better sources already in use). I figured I'd continue this discussion to see if any other editors agreed or disagreed, and it doesn't appear as though that is going to happen so I think it's probably safe to say that a consensus has been reached. If the self-published site (even though it sends out PDFs of its newsletters) were to offer any kind of new information to the article, I might be willing to concede, but there are better sources for the referenced information and strugglingteens.com already cited on this article. If you disagree, please explain why. Otherwise I'll probably start working on finding better references than this silly, obviously biased and self-published blog/website. Again, congratulations and thank you for all of your years of service here. --EarlySquid (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my comment about not objecting to removing the source, that is when it looked like it was only one of three sources supporting the same content about being nondenominational. When I saw later that the source supported other content (the problem when there are bare refs), I reverted myself before anyone replied because that cast another light on the matter and caused me to rethink that position. I do not believe a consensus has been reached, so I think the source should be brought up at the reliable source noticeboard for more editors to weigh in. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academics

[edit]

West Ridge Academy is a fully functional K-12 school, accredited through Northwest Association of Accredited Schools. With a student-teacher ratio of 15:1, their certified faculty are committed to preparing students to be successful, both now and in the future. West Ridge Academy curriculum follows the state core guidelines. While West Ridge Academy focusis reading, writing and arithmetic, they also offer a wide range of classes in the social and physical sciences, language arts, physical education and music. The students at West Ridge Academy have the opportunity to continue in their education by receiving scholarships to community colleges and universities. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyutah981 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that this is a request for an addition to the article. Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, most of the above paragraph is copied verbatim from this page on the school website. We cannot add those words verbatim, because the content is covered by copyright. Could you please provide additional explanation of what you want to add to the article? Are there sources independent of the school that substantiate the information for verifiability? --Orlady (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://westridgeacademy.com/program_academics.aspx

Norwood court case and "non profit" status, plus missionaries

[edit]

Point 1) In the Norwood abuse case, Norwood claims that the lawyer for the WRA states this in his questions for jurors -

“This case involves claims of sexual abuse against a residential treatment facility for children run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day [sic] Saints (Mormon Church) whose wrongful or negligent conduct was a legal cause of the victim’s molestation.”

This claim can be tested if anyone has a Pace account. If it is true, it is clear that WCA is indeed run by the Mormon church - contrary to the assertions of the LDS and this article.

Point 2) Norwood's website lists some extensive documentation on the funnelling of money via shell accounts, phoney client lists, as well as the large payments received for undocumented services.

Why is this sourced information (it's all publicly available via mandatory filings) not referenced in this article when it is clearly of major importance.

Point 3)

The school claims to be non-denominational yet is run by the Mormon church (see point 1) and has mandatory Mormon prayers, teaching and even hosts missionaries. How is that consistent with claims of being non-denominational?

Just want to see what consensus and/or discussion have been had here on these specific points before I start editing. Altan001 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find your answers by researching what Wikipedia defines as valid references. Look under WP:V --StormRider 16:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Storm Rider has a real problem with Eric Norwood. It's obvious from reading this talk page. What a funny guy. He's obsessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.221.138 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating that the US court system is not a valid source? That tax returns and company filings are not valid sources? Just want to be clear, as I am not referring to Norwood's site as the source - I thought that was fairly obvious. You may have a problem with Norwood (given a reading of this talk page) but he is irrelevant to the veracity of the points I raised - he is not the source but merely reporting them. Someone with a PACE account can easily check point 1 for example, and a reading of company filings will illuminate point 2. I just don't want to repeat the research if someone has already done it. Altan001 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stating that you have read the rules for valid sources? Please just read Wikipedia rules and follow them; all of us are committed to following the same rules. The purpose for having rules is to ensure that a the statements we say are backed up by expert sources i.e. professionals that have their work reviewed by third parties.
I personally don't know Norwood or anyone associated with this school. It is just one of the articles that I have assisted in my time on Wikipedia. --StormRider 14:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Currently there are links to Federal Court Filings for three court cases. Does anyone know if these fall under the part of WP:BLPPRIMARY where it says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."? --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also be more specific. The text in question, for which the court filings are cited, go beyond merely that the case exists and beyond what can be found at the Justia.com web pages:
  1. In the Eisley case, I do not see where the nature of the allegations are stated (beyond personal injury) nor the status of the case.
  2. In the John Doe et al. case, I do not see the nature of the allegations nor the connection to WRA, unlike the other two cases where WRA is explicitly listed among the defendants
  3. In the Norwood case, I see nothing to indicate whether or not the case has been dismissed "with prejudice".
I've tried to do my due diligence to find other sources besides the court documents on this but have not turned up anything. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the question at WP:BLPN, but I have bad feeling it's going to get archived without comment from others. I will try WP:RSN after that. If, however, no one else comments, I will remove the statements that I list above and cannot be verified at the Justia.com links provided. Thoughts from anyone? --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's really quite irrelevant whether the court documents pass some minor policy or not. We have no business mentioning ongoing litigation at all unless it is being covered on a continuing basis by media far away from Utah. Per NOTNEWS. If it were being widely covered, there would be no need to use primary sources. If it isn't being covered it doesn't belong. John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on West Ridge Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on West Ridge Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2016

[edit]

Under Relationship with the LDS Church it states: "The Academy was established in 19464 with the assistance of a $10,000 donation from David O. McKay..." It should state "The Academy was established in 1964 with the assistance of a $10,000 donation from David O. McKay..."

Also the coordinates to the Academy are: {{coord|40|35|03.2604||N|112|01|09.7212|W|type:landmark|display=title}} 40.584239,-112.019367 according to * itouchmap.com and Google Maps 192.55.208.10 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Ridge_Academy&oldid=1233751836"