Talk:Moreland School

COI Question

I declare that I have no conflict of interest related to the article about the Moreland School District. My interest is in the Moreland School District and as a California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006 could you please explain where you got the text "It provides an extensive array of programs designed to nurture the academic, social, and emotional growth of each student." from? Did someone write it for you? It sounds exactly like the kind of wording you have previously been given by paid clients and put in articles without proper referencing. Melcous (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I am removing this setence from the article since it is not backed up by the sources provided. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, please kindly show Melcous the courtesy of answering her question. This is not the first time that you have made things up to fluff up an article or added unsourced content at the request of a client. The article is written with a promotional tone. The emphasis should be on the fact that there is a California Historical Landmark if that is what confers notablity. Basic information about the district is fine but the tone reads like a recruitment tool. Netherzone (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll rewrite based on the California Historical Landmark. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006 could you please clearly answer the question, did you someone else provide you with this text? I also note this is not the only problematic content that is promotionally worded and not verified by sources provided. Melcous (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The text was provided by me as a summary of the Moreland school's programs. It text has been removed and the draft has been rewritten in a non promotional way to reflect Moreland School as a California Historical Landmark. The text is now verifiable by the sources provided. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous and Netherzone:, I just realized this article existed already but it was turned into a direct due to perceived non-notability. The edit history leading up to re-direct indicates substantial level of public relations editing. The fact that it was redirected for non-notability should be taken into account before accepting the draft. Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - the Draft:Moreland School District has been rewritten to focus on the Moreland School as California's first rural school district in the state and a commemorative plaque designates this site as California Historical Landmark #489. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

How did you come upon the logo you uploaded at such a high resolution of 2,348 × 1,076 pixels? Use of such a high resolution WP:LOGO is not advised and. What really makes me wonder is that it's at much higher resolution than the version floating around on the web, including the website you referenced on Commons. Have you been in communication with the School District at all with regard to Wikipedia article? The resolution is such that it suggests it came from their communications office. The image description from Commons which you uploaded The Moreland School District logo, courtesy of Moreland School District (Maureen Naylor Public Information Officer). along with the question raised by Melcous raises suspicion of client engaged editing. Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: In doing my research for the article, I contacted Moreland School District for permission to use the logo in the article. I also provided them with a copy of the draft. They provided permission to use the logo, which they provided, and had no edits that wanted for the article. There is no COI or payments made. Please remove the tag on the article regarding "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments," as it is not true. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You can't just get personal "permission to use logo" on their licensing terms. That's not how it works. If they didn't unconditionally release it indefinitely for anyone to do whatever with it for any reason, we don't use it here. We don't do permission for "Wikipedia article purpose". Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask for them to send permission-commons permission to use the logo and add "OTRS pending" for now. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They're aware that terms are as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ and once released, the permission is indefinite and they do can not revoke it, correct? Graywalls (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I sent them the release email to send to permissions-commons that includes this verbiage. Let's see how they respond. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have no close connection with the subject. Please remove the tag. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no concerns re notability (below), but I do think this is skirting too close to previous issues around COI/PAID editing. Contacting the subject of an article and providing them with a draft, with them responding by providing a high quality image and saying they have no edits that wanted for the article suggests that if they had had edits they wanted you would have made those edits. To my understanding, this is a close connection with the subject and should be disclosed, and ideally this kind of practice should be avoided. The goal should be to submit drafts to the wikipedia community for review, not to submit them to subjects/clients to see what they think. Melcous (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous Since now myself, you, and @Robert McClenon have no issues with the notability aspect- is there a reason it can't be moved back to mainspace? Do we have consensus?

I am fairly new to reviewing and have not encountered a contentious draft like this before, so it would be good to understand the process. Qcne (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Altho I wasn't pinged on your question, Qcune, I too agree that it could be moved back to mainspace. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps as Moreland School, not School District. I think this is more in line with your suggestion. The District, I believe fails NCORP and there's public relations activity concerns. So, the article could be made mostly about the school, and deminimis coverage on the grade school district system. Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Moreland School is a better title for the article, esp. since that is the CA Historical Landmark name as well. Netherzone (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am OK with the title being Moreland School, however it was oldest known rural school district in California, so calling it Moreland School District is OK too. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The conditional first, last, -est in industry, city, category, in class, in area, in trade. . . . . are common public relations notability claims to make insignificant things look significant. i.e. the first and oldest certified B Corp to produce organic tomato ketchup in the Pacific northwest. Graywalls (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no COI with Moreland School. I simply want to include it in the California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County. Right now when you click on the link to Moreland School, on this page, it takes you to San Jose, California. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the logo could have simply been used as "fair use" at very minimal resolution. That is if inclusion is even warranted. Per WP:LOGO Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons. The logo is not artistically interesting and the "innovate, collaborate, educate" tagline is highly advertorial. No single piece of following concerns are strong enough to be definitive, but when these strands are bundled, there's a reasonable concerns of COI despite denial. These strands include Moreland district's business relationship with Zearn, the Zearn article creator's UPE incident and their correspondence with Zearn, the highly promotional It provides an extensive array of programs designed to nurture the academic, social, and emotional growth of each student cliche and finally, this article creator's correspondence with public information officer of Moreland School District that seems to be unnecessary. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Moreland School logo is not in the article anymore. I removed it because we should focus on the article as a historical landmark. Again I have no COI or relationship with Moreland School. At the time, I was just asking for permission to use the logo and as a courtesy for them to review the draft. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, you do have a connection to the Moreland School District, given that you created the Zearn Learning Management System article for pay as a formerly undisclosed paid editor. I think there is a COI here, but perhaps not a strong one. Several of the schools in the District purchased and use Zearn, so effectively, it seems PR-like for your paid client. Does Moreland School itself also use Zearn? Your recent communications with the district re: the logo use reinforces this connection. Netherzone (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I have no connection wtih Moreland School District. I simply want to complete the California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County and Moreland School is one of the landmarks. I've changed the article so it more related to the Morland School historical landmark. The fact that Moreland school uses educational software like Zearn is coincidental. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's within corporate business interest of Zearn to elevate the profile of its key clientele since they want to be seen as a vendor to notable clients, rather than to some holes in the wall around the nation. The draft creator's change of main article photo from the picture of the building for which the notability is supposed to be about to a logo obtained from the school district's communications department suggest a change in emphasis from historical notability of building to corporate identity of the school district to go with paid PR editing for Zearn.Graywalls (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am confused by your statement. I changed the picture from the Moreland School District logo back to the picture of the landmark. The article is about the landmark not about Zearn or the current school. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the diff # wrong initially, but I've since fixed that. Please recheck the diff. I am talking about your change of main photo from building into corporate identity logo of the school district. You then re-inserted a building photo after I called out on the logo. Graywalls (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to make this so difficult. Ideally, I think the Moreland School District logo should be part of the article. When the article was was reviewed by Qcne and released to the article space it had the school logo. Then, when you redrafted the article, I changed the logo because you through a fuss about the logo. I thought I should change it to the landmark image since that is what the article is all about. Either way, the article was reviewed, released, and it should be a link on the California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County main article, not a link to San Jose, California. Again I have no COI. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I threw a fuss? Editors can't be obtaining purpose-specific permission from copyright holders (images with such a license is not inclusion worthy), then be presenting it online as freely released irrevocably for anyone to transform, and adapt from with attribution to Moreland School. This is a big deal. Graywalls (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is the email from Maureen:

Hi Greg,

You're welcome. There is no release form to sign. As far as usage, we provided you the logo for the use of this article only.

Please reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Maureen Greg Henderson (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Webmasters, bloggers and journalists, satirists and others regularly come to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia to use on their assignments/projects and look for things that are CC BY-SA they can just copy, paste and attribute. Conditional use media are basically useless. Graywalls (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The logo is not being used in the article. It can be deleted if need be. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006 you keep saying you have no COI, but you have also said you asked as a courtesy for them to review the draft. I would suggest doing this in and of itself creates a COi, and certainly it creates the perception of one. Do you not see this?Melcous (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of this. I won’t do this in the future. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The trivia I've removed here is also interesting. It had a source, but I didn't see the source bringing attention to the proximity of Moreland School to this community. Actually, the source has no mention of "Moreland" whatsoever. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The source, Historic spots in California, says on page 434, "not far from Gubserville was the Moreland School." The author is pointing out that there was a stagecoach line that through Saratoga and that Gubserville and the Moreland School were both landmarks in close proximity to each other. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually searched for the keyword "moreland" and it didn't come up when I first searched it. I see it now. "nearby, at Payne and Saratoga Avenues, is the site of the moreland School (SRL 489)", but this is on 433. The quote you mentioned above, doesn't pop up. Perhaps the full text search isn't showing everything. I'll ask you to clarify with the exact page # in the future. I am not sure if it's mention worthy though. If non-involved editors (that is not a newly created single purpose account) wants to restore it, I have no objections. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, if the only sources about where the bell went are the current district's website or bloggy sites like hmdb.org, I suggest we omit it. We might even be able to entirely or nearly entirely omit mentions of the current Moreland School District. Graywalls (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The bell is quoted here in the current article: "The original school bell, once situated at the building's tower above the old school, has been preserved and is now displayed outside the current Moreland School District Office, serving as a reminder of its historical legacy. Moreland School remained in continuous operation on the original site donated by Zechariah Moreland from 1852 to 1975, spanning 123 years. Today, the Moreland School District is a PreK-8 public school district headquartered in San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, USA."

I suggest omit the setence, although it has revelance as to what happend to the Moreland School: "Today, the Moreland School District is a PreK-8 public school district headquartered in San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, USA." Greg Henderson (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we keep reference to the current school district to the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. Graywalls (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Re-draftify

I've re-draftified. @Qcne:, the re-direct existed as an article before it was a re-direct. It was made into a re-direct by another editor due to notability concerns. If anything, the proposer could have submitted as an edit request into the existing re-direct. Did you look at the multiple declines on the draft? Did you look at the comments? Graywalls (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous, Netherzone, and Robert McClenon:, pinging you because you've previously participated in the AfC comments or discussion on this draft, which was repeatedly declined. I've concerns that argument it's "focused on historic aspect of building" seems to be laundering notability as a way to get the SCHOOL DISTRICT, pivoting off the claim of building notability. Graywalls (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I had suggested above on 30 September that The emphasis should be on the fact that there is a California Historical Landmark if that is what confers notablity. Basic information about the district is fine but the tone reads like a recruitment tool. My comment was in response to Greg's 23 September note above that he was interested in the school district because it was a CA Hist. Landmark. I don't think there is "notability laundering" going on if there are reliable sources for the site as a CA historical landmark. A source analysis could be done to determine whether or not there is enough SIGCOV to support it as a wiki-notable historical landmark. I'm not sure if there are guidelines on whether state historical landmarks are considered to have inherent notability, but perhaps an inquiry at Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites would be relevant; there is also a task force specific to California at Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites/California historic sites task force, one of the editors there may know. Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Graywalls. I disagree with the re-draftification. I reviewed the draft on it's own merits and felt it was a well written article that passed WP:GNG.

I did look at the three decline notices - I don't like your insinuation that I did not - which was focused on the promotional tone. I detected no promotional language in the draft. I note now the decline notices have been removed...?

I vaguely know the context around @Greghenderson2006 as I have reviewed a couple of his other drafts, but as I said I reviewed it on it's merits. A blocked user who creates good drafts should be more carefully reviewed, sure, but I felt it passed GNG.

There's an argument to be made that the article should be titled Moreland School as this is the main subject of the draft, and downplay the District part of it. But, still, I do believe it passes GNG. Qcne (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If an Article A was created, then it was redirected into article B due to non-notability, and another user writes a draft, you're suggesting that re-direct should be erased and placed in place of what existed rather than editing the redirect again into an article? Such would hide prior issues, like obvious evidence of public relations editing that has happened by connected parties. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It was not my intention to hide evidence of anything, I was just following the process for when a redirect exists and a draft is ready to be moved to mainspace. Let me know if there is a different process I should follow in these circumstances? Qcne (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I declined the article because I had conflict of interest concerns, not because I had notability concerns. I was thinking of accepting the article before I had the COI concerns. Also, I don't like the idea of draftifying an article that was accepted by a reviewer. I am aware that there is no guideline against this. I would prefer to see an article that was accepted by a reviewer taken to AFD to let the community decide, and draftification is a valid result of a deletion discussion. But now that it is in draft space, I think that I will leave it alone. Please ping me if it is accepted and then nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

So...

• A. Keep it here
• B. Move to Moreland School
• C. Move to Moreland School District

I personally say, B, then make any mentions to the School District minimal. Graywalls (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

B. The article should be moved to Moreland School, and the lead section should be changed to emphasize the school as a California Historical Landmark. The lead as it is now drafted emphasizes the Moreland School District. I can go ahead and make those changes if consensus, when it is determined, is to move to B. Netherzone (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

An after thought. I wonder if it's unique enough, or if it should be called Moreland School (San Jose) Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I vote for B, Moreland School, which is the focus of the article as the Moreland School landmark. I think there should be some mention to what happened to the school, and that today, there is a Moreland School District that is a public school district headquartered in San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: It appears that we have three votes in favor of moving this article to Moreland School for option "B." Is there a possibility for you to grant approval for this move? Greg Henderson (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 I've moved it to mainspace now. Qcne (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you also fix the link to the article on the California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County page? Greg Henderson (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Done Qcne (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Previous impact on the article by public relations activity

Just so we have a glimpse of it: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Moreland_School_District&oldid=818470195 Very aggrandizing style like putting "hon. " and listing out former board members. The reason this is important to mention is that articles with a history of prior public relations activity is usually an indication of desire to control contents in the future as well. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Moreland School

I reverted your edit to Moreland School as it doesn't make sense? "The Moreland School was established in 1851, as California's oldest rural school district in the state" and as you have a clear conflict of interest with this topic having been in touch with them, you should use the edit request process on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)