Talk:Delphian School

Possible source

I'm not sure how reliable it should be considered, but The Daily recently published an article reporting on this school which could be used as a source: [1] Robofish (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A Scientology Front

As was noted 3 years ago, this is another Scientology "school" selling Scientology, commentary about which has been "refreshed" in today's Underground Bunker in: Scientology’s ‘Hogwarts’ doesn’t want you to think it’s connected to Scientology article, prompted by Scientology's removal of a question to their Facebook account wherein someone asked about the "school" actually being Scientology.

I think the article conveys the fact that this "Delphian" is a Scientology entity fairly well. The question I have is whether anyone researching schools and brings this page up will read the extant article and understand that this is in fact a Scientology entity, that "students" will be expected to engage in purchasing Scientology and using Hubbard's/Scientology's bizarre notions. Is the article informative and accurate enough to provide legitimate and solid information for researchers (i.e. parents) to avoid buying in to this Scientology facility? Does the extant article require update? Should editors work on expanding this article? Damotclese (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird Refs.

This edit added a handful of refs that were merely numbers in superscript (like this: ^[11]). I don't know what sources, if any, were intended to be used for the statements, so I've replaced the funkiness with ^{[citation needed]} templates. Proper templates, that is. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the page here is basically a stub, from my perspective, and the "external links" section is empty. The whole thing needs work, but who has the time? :)

The first citation talking about the ages of "students" being as young as 5 is a claim thatScientology makes on their own web site ...Boarding students are accepted from the age of 8, and day students from the age of 5." at This Scientology Web Site Link so that might be a good citation to drop in there.

The second citation is a little more difficult to provide since the Scientology web site only mentions that the Heron Basics is used in their Scientology classes. They only mention Heron Books 4 times on their web site, One Of Which Is Here. They use the books but there's no good on-line indication that the publisher is housed here.

Still, what do Editors think about utilizing those two links for those two citations that are needed? Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is learn4good a Scientology web site? I don't think it is.

The point about ages seems pretty important and non-controversial. That seems like the perfect example of what primary sources are good for. I'm surprised the info isn't easier to find on their website, but I eventually found it explained in a PDF of the student handbook (page 23). This is par-for-the-course for private schools, for some damn reason. Years ago I found a site for a school that spent pages and pages talking about its curriculum, campus, philosphy, mission statement, vision statement etc., but failed to ever mention what state it was in, much less give an address. Sorry, I digress. Anyway... I'm not sure if the PDF is better or worse than the learn4good link, but at least it's more obviously primary. Both seem adequate for the purpose.

As for Heron Books, their own website lists their address, and although it doesn't specifically mention that it's the same as Delphian, it also lists the address of Delphian School, and it's the same. I don't think it's really a contentious point. It's weird that they don't mention it, and I would like a source clearly explaining the link between the two, but by itself this doesn't seem like something that needs too much detail. This is similar to Waldorf schools publishing books on Rudolf Steiner's educational theories. For schools with atypical educational philosophies, it's almost a forgone conclusion that they will need to publish their own materials.

The school's connection with the Church of Scientology is the elephant in the article, but since the school makes it explicitly clear that they do not describe themselves as a Scientology school, sources for any connection need to be top-quality. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have also noticed that about some private schools, what I think happens is people working on private school web sites are short-term students at the school so their web sites get rather odd and information decay happens as student after student does maintenance. Maybe. I agree, the page link you suggest seems to be solid enough to act as a citation for that issue, yes.

The references showing the book publisher as the same address seems like it is also solid and reliable. You bring up a good point in that though they claim to not be a "Scientology school" as such, the Wikipedia article needs to avoid specifically making such a statement, absolutely agreed. Researchers will note that they provide Scientology processing and "technology," no need to call them a "Scientology school." One issue with that is that we saw actor Will Smith funded a Scientology school which denied it was a Scientology school, only to have teachers get hired who were instructed to teach Scientology (and the resulting lawsuits from parents who were lied to.) So unambiguously informing people researching Delphian that they offer Scientology processing is, I believe, important. We don't want people to be intentionally misinformed by agents of Scientology who are well aware that nobody will sign up if they are aware it's actually Scientology being dished out.

The "learn4good.com" web site, by the way, is a "Scientology web site" only in the weak sense that it is registered to Patrick Thompson who works in a Dublin, Ireland Scientology office and has These Course Completions. So Learn4Good.com (and by weak extention Patrick Thompson) is basically selling/advertising the books. Still, the Learn4Good.Com citation is too weak to use, I agree there also. Damotclese (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, deep research on learn4good. Having worked with small private schools in the past, your theory matches my experiences. The NCES entry, which I just added to the infobox, supports the school being K-12. The Oregon School Directory 2008-2009 which was used to support the pre K-12 claim only says K-12. Maybe they had a pre-k program for a while? Who knows. The NCES link also gives a specific number of students. The infobox could support listing the number of students per grade, but that seems a bit bloated for such a comparatively small school. It would underscore how much smaller the non-boarding population is, though, I dunno. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes me wonder at what age K begins -- I checked. :) The State of Oregon says "Kindergarten entry cutoff date: 5th birthday occurs on or before September 1" so age 5 is legal for K. I see that in the State of Oregon Preschool(a.k.a. nursery school) is "any age." Humm... Maybe they ran a Preschool for staff with small children. Well now we have quality citations. Damotclese (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

not sure if you're still active, but their youtube channel is REALLY creepy... Normal Bates (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Not Accredited -- Other blatant promotions reverted

The editor who proposed a number of updates to this page, please note that the Scientology web site propaganda is not legitimate sources for references and citations, it is | blatant promotion. Also school accreditation for Wikipedia should reference or cite actual accreditation from State-recognized entities which list real schools, not third-party companies that merely list schools for a fee.

If you can find references and citations for your proposed updates which are not Scientology web sites and blatant lies and promotion, please resubmit your changes with the appropriate texts. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Scientology relegated to a single category that's not even visible on the mobile version of the article?

That's really rather odd. Is there any consensus on whether this is appropriate? --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Reduce the number of primary sources in favor of secondary
• Move some of the citations from the lead down into the body
• Check into "OFIS" to see if it's anything other than a public relations or advocacy arm of Delphi management/ownership
• Consider merging Delphian School into Delphi Schools

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merging. A quick Google search for Delphian School shows that there's some media coverage on the school itself, so it does meet WP:NSCHOOL. We can certainly try to fix some of the citations and sources, which can be improved. But both Delphian School and Delphi Schools are notable enough to stand on their own. We also don't typically merge schools into school districts, even for non-descript smaller schools and school districts in the US such as Riverside High School (Lake City, Arkansas) and Riverside School District (Arkansas) -- these are all typically supposed to be separate articles, and it's useful to have them stay separate instead of merged.

In any case I support improving citations and Grorp's first three suggestions. Thanks for pointing these out. Cephalopodas (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

These are private schools/organizations, all owned/run by the same people (and predominantly at the same location). There is no "school district"; it is companies and parent companies.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done – merge completed. I just changed my mind about this. Grorp's comments make sense to me, so I've decided to go ahead and merge the two articles. Delphian School is by far the best-known entity, and everything else isn't nearly as notable or widely mentioned in the press. Cephalopodas (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)