Talk:Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Links

It appears that an unknown editor working from an IP address is adding irrelevant links to this article from pages about local places. This makes it appear that the school is using Wikipedia (a charity) immorally for free advertising. The reputation of the school is at stake. Please stop.--Harkey (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little - well, a lot - confused. Are these links from within Wikipedia, or external? If the former they can be removed if irrelevant, and if the latter I'm not sure how posting here is going to help. Do please enlighten us. Thanks, DBaK (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that an IP editor who states that he/she has nothing to do with the school is making internal links to articles about places some distance away from the school. The way in which this is being done looks as though it is promotion of the school. When the irrelevant links and text are reverted the IP user just reverts again with terse, even rude edit summaries. This is not doing the school any good.--Harkey (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! Sounds annoying. Let me know if I can help - or might it be worth making it a bit more of a formal process and/or talking to a sympathetic admin about ways forward? Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PS What's an example of a bad link of this type? I don't know your bit of Yorks very well! DBaK (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point probably least said, soonest mended. Eh?--Harkey (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. :) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CReSTeD

User:213.246.90.36 has repeatedly inserted the claim that this school is registered with CReSTeD, which registers schools to teach dyslexic pupils. However, the CReSTeD website does not list Woodleigh School, and the school has been asked by a CReSTeD representative to remove the claim from its website. As such, references to CReSTeD - either their assessments or their membership - are not appropriate in the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Other users have been removing sourced content without gaining consensus. Obfuscation by user:yunshui isfutile:P (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No claim has been inserted. You appear to be removing statements regularly however. Check the edit history. There is no claim to current membership on the article. The school inspection report is on record and cannot be erased from history because of your WP:NPOV issue. If you feel strongly, raise consensus first before making a contentious change, and avoid edit warring. Please stop removing referenced content and vandalising the page. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your source is an unsigned registration form, and all is shows is that an inspector visited the school in 2008 - why is this in any way encyclopedic information? Most schools receive regular inspection visits of one sort or another; whilst membership of CReSTeD might be worth noting, merely being inspected by them is less than trivial. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not true - this is a summary report. Perhaps you should read beyond the first two sentences ?! Again, obfuscation by user:yunshui isfutile:P (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Having edited this article for many years I agree with the IP. The report is referenced and no good reason has been given to remove it. Inspection reports are the norm on school pages. Also they are inherently encyclopaedic. The reverts appear one sided and I vote that the referenced material should stay. isfutile:P (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A proposed compromise: add the sentence, "The school is not currently registered with CReSTeD" (using CReSTeD's own school listings as a source) to the current sentence. Thoughts? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC

I can see what you are trying to achieve re the school not bring registered to this organisation (any more?) . But in itself is this not encyclopaedic. If there is some sort of dispute, not sure if there is, but the editing is suggestive, then I'm not sure WP is the place to promote it. Schools often change inspection provider from Ofsted to ISI to care standards etc. It would not be appropriate to put up an Ofsted report but state the school no longer used Ofsted but ISI? I'm concerned that this isn't really about the article, but more about crested as an organisation seeking to control use of their 'marque' on WP. The fact is the school does appear to have been inspected by them and this is referenced. Maybe instead refer to it as an inspection for the provision of dyslexia and omit the word crested - but even so I'm concerned that WP would be bending to the wishes of an outside organisati and whether that is the right thing to do .isfutile:P (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the basic fact is that the school isn't currently on the CReSTeD register for dyslexia provision. Claiming that it's been inspected without giving either the results of the inspection or the present situation with regards to registration is disingenous; it tacitly implies that Woodleigh is registered with CReSTeD. I don't see this as "bending to the wishes of an outside organisation"; either a school is on the list or it isn't - that's basically what CReSTeD exists for. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Results were given. Once again - Perhaps you should read beyond the first two sentences ?! Ever get the impression you're repeating yourself? Again, obfuscation by user:yunshui isfutile:P (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No I can't agree with that. The issue is not whether the school is on the list - the article does not state this. If this is the issue then I assume the discussion is resolved? The fact the school has an inspection document (which is what I understand the link to be - it seems to match other schools' inspection report format for Crested on google searches) from this organisation is historic - and part of the school's encyclopaedic history. Whether or not the school is currently registered with that organization (a fact which incidentally has not been verifiably established or referenced) is not relevant since this is not suggested. It would not be correct to rewrite history on that (or any other) basis. Also, I still cannot find any text in the article to suggest that the school is a current member of Crested - the reference made is to 2008 - not exactly current. To remove any reference would be akin to deleting an event in history simply because someone didn't like it. isfutile:P (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The "reference" is just an application form, nothing else, and does not meet WP:Reliable sources by any measure. It doesn't even indicate that the school was ever accepted. There's no reason to retain information that is obviously out-of-date, per CReSTeD's own website (which does not list Woodleigh anywhere). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As previously stated - the inspection document does match other schools' inspection report format for Crested on google searches. Read the report and you will notice "consultant's comments" added in bold referring to the inspection. In section 14 you will find the "Summary of report" written by the inspector. This is also detailed on the school's own website: http://www.woodleighschool.com/index.php/2009/12/28/view-inspection-report-here/

If you do not believe inspection reports meet WP:Reliable sources then that would be a major issue which would require the removal of inspections reports from tens of thousands of schools across the UK. I hardly think anyone will view that as a valid argument. Therefore the inspection report, as a valid 3rd party reference which meets WP:reliable and WP:notability should stay.

Also, the notion the school was registered and was inspected has been suggested and verified by all, including Crested. Only you appear to be disputing this, or am I misunderstanding your position? A google search reveals: http://www.yell.com/b/Woodleigh+School-Schools+and+Colleges-Malton-YO179QN-936277/index.html , http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/schools/158813/woodleigh-school, http://www.cylex-uk.co.uk/company/woodleigh-school-13502263.html, http://www.isbi.com/viewschool.asp?school=2631-Woodleigh_School_Langton, http://web.archive.org/web/20100612185301/http://www.crested.org.uk/pages/schoolslist.htm - all verifiable third party sources, especially ISI and the Good Schools Guide which evidence the school's membership and inspection record. Notice Crested's own website validates the inspection and registration. There is every reason to retain historic data - a school's history is inherently encyclopedic and should not be sanitised for a vested interest's personal whim. All inspection reports should be included on a school's page, and not just the most recent, otherwise important elements of a school's history could be buried or deliberately hidden. That would be disingenuous. I feel that the same ground is being gone over and I'm not going to comment further unless there is anything new to be introduced to the discussion. However, if the established material keeps being removed for no good reason I will restore the content and suggest a semi-protect. isfutile:P (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I am new to wikipedia so forgive me if I am causing a problem, it was not my intention. I am the user (Lesleyfarrar) who is trying to get the page for Woodleigh School changed. The report to which their wiki page links is out of date, we (CReSTeD) clearly state that a school's registration is only valid for 3 years . Yes the school has been previously registered, however, since it declined to be re-visited at the due date the registration is no longer valid. You can see a full list of all schools which are on the register at . CReSTeD is by no means the Goliath to Woodleigh School's David here, we are a tiny charity, established to provide parents with a reliable and verifiable source of information regarding the selection of a school for a dyslexic child. Schools change constantly, from good to bad and vice versa, unless a school is visited regularly how can a parent know that the school still meets the standards we set, they expect and their child deserves. I do not know what the policy within wikipedia is regarding listing inspection reports, although I would respectfully suggest that a school linking to, for example, a less than current report because it is more favourable than the most recent report would be rather out of order. I can assure you that I have been in contact with the school directly to try to resolve this situation. As for references in 3rd party databases such as the Good Schools Guide, I totally disagree with any suggestion that this is verification of Woodleigh's position but rather that the Good Schools Guide also needs to update it's records. A point I intend to help them put right. I will not touch the Woodleigh page content again, I have repeated my request to the school that all references to CReSTeD be removed from their publicity material (like it or not wikipedia is a publicity vehicle, which most people trust as a generally reliable source of information). I am extremely upset that the school are seeking to represent themselves, however, ambiguously as still having a CReSTeD link, there is much more history to this than confidentiality allows me to disclose. I resent the accusation that I am trying to make wikipedia bow to pressure, CReSTeD have rules too. If every school on our register decided to rest on the laurels of previous reports, we would cease to exist and that would leave parents with even less well informed choices than they have now. I am, however, very sorry that I, through naivety, stepped on the editorial toes of wikipedia, I think it best to bring my brief dip into the world of wikipedia to an end, I'll leave you guys to your discussion.Lesleyfarrar (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)LesleyfarrarLesleyfarrar (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)--Lesleyfarrar (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh! What a lot of accusations and what an WP:UNCIVIL tone.

1: "The report to which their wiki page links is out of date" The report is dated and not purporting to be current, but historic. Historic reports are part of a school's history. (As previously explained). Accusation unfounded. 2:"I would respectfully suggest that a school linking to, for example, a less than current report because it is more favorable than the most recent report would be rather out of order." All the school's inspection reports are listed in the article, favorable or not. The accusation is therefore unfounded. 3:"(like it or not wikipedia is a publicity vehicle, which most people trust as a generally reliable source of information)" No WP is specifically not a publicity material, which is why sources have to be third party and verifiable, which this source is. There are rules regarding publicity which I note no party has invoked. Accusation unfounded.

4: "I am extremely upset that the school are seeking to represent themselves, however, ambiguously as still having a CReSTeD link, there is much more history to this than confidentiality allows me to disclose. " Are you suggesting that the two editors who have reverted your content changes are linked to the school? I certainly am not and resent the implication. How very uncivil of you and in clear breach of WP:COI and WP:CIVIL. Accusation unfounded.

5: It appears to me that Lesley Farrar is involved in a dispute with the school re registration, and does that infer money perhaps? Is he/she using editing rights on WP as leverage - which of course would be completely unacceptable on WP? There is further obfuscation by his/her suggestion that the article in some way claims the school is a current member of this Crested organisation. I cannot find any such inference.

6: Reading through LF's comments Crested seems to be claiming that if a school was registered but is no longer registered then any evidence of their registration in the past should be expunged from history. How very totalitarian!

7: The only matter to consider here is whether it would be correct to remove verifiable, established, third party referenced content. I vote to KEEP since (again) no good evidence has been provided to dispute the veracity of the content. isfutile:P (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am greatly disturbed that LF has apparently been scared off. The above post seems like it probably contributed, though LF specifically mentions another, closely related incident. In any case:

• Use of jargon should at the very least be linked. Ideally it shouldn't be used around newbies at all.
• Item 3 appears to intentionally misinterpret the user's statement. They did not mean "companies can/should use WP for publicity" but "ordinary people in practice trust WP".
• Item 4 was presumably about the school's website, not the article. It was not a personal attack, and was not intended as one; even if it was about the article, it was still directed towards content rather than contributors. I am amazed that you interpreted it as you did.
• Item 5 is an unfounded personal attack. If it was substantiated, an article talk page would be the wrong venue for it.
• Item 6 is possibly a straw man argument and definitely an appeal to emotion.
• LF clearly wanted to do the right thing.

In the future, please try harder not to WP:BITE the newbies. --NYKevin @146, i.e. 02:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Seems to be pretty clear consensus to keep the statement and reference as is. Closed by RfC nominator Yunshui 雲‍水 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the article reference the fact that Woodleigh School was inspected by CReSTeD in 2008? If so, should the article also indicate that the school is not currently registered with CReSTeD? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove reference, or add statement to indicate lack of current membership. Whilst it can be verified (via this PDF in the school's archive) that the school was inspected by CReSTeD in 2008, the report cited is out-of-date (CReSTeD require that schools re-apply for inclusion every three years). The school does not appear to be currently registered with CReSTeD, despite the claim on its website (CReSTeD has requested that the school remove this claim). Although it has been claimed (see discussion above) that the report should be included as "part of the school's encyclopaedic history", Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we do not have to include a report simply because it exists. In addition, the school's website is a primary source for this article; if we are to include information about its professional membership, secondary sources - such as CReSTeD - would be preferable. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)K

KEEP for reasons given above some time ago. isfutile:P (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP the material as is - this has already been discussed at length. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a good reason to remove this or make any changes based on this request. Looks to me like an OFFWIKI dispute between CRESTED and the school involved. 95.149.232.203 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If we can find sources (from CReSTeD or elsewhere) indicating a dispute, that dispute should be mentioned. The article as it stands does not seem to imply membership per se, although a clarification might be helpful. I oppose the removal of sourced info on general principles, but I feel there are other options. --NYKevin @629, i.e. 14:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep reference as is, but mention that certification is only valid for three years for clarification. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

CReSTeD is not in dispute with Woodleigh School over either membership or registration. CReSTeD is not a club, we don't have any members, it is a charity established for the sole purpose of providing parents, guardians and educational professionals with an objective guide to schools in the UK which provide tuition for pupils with dyslexia. When a school requests membership they are visited by a CReSTeD consultant who assesses their provision against published standards, we make every effort to make sure these standards are objective. Every school on our register is revisited every 3 years to ensure standards are being maintained. When the renewal for Woodleigh became due they were contacted to ask to apply for re-registration, they declined. The register is not intended to benefit schools in any way, it is designed to provide information to those who need it. The reputation of CReSTeD is such that many local authorities will only fund places based on a diagnosis for dyslexia if the school in on the register. The Armed Forces Continuity of Education Grant has the same restriction for pupils with dyslexia. Parents have a hard enough time as it is finding a) funding and b) a school which meets their needs without wasting time looking at a school which would not allow them the funding their child so desperately needs. I do not see the referenced material as being an inspection report, it is a re-registration application form and does not in and of itself prove the school was re-registered. They were on that occasion but the point stands. At the risk of being accused of "reductio ad absurdum" I could show you a copy of my application to join the MI5, it would not mean I had every actually become an MI5 agent. Lesleyfarrar (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep the referenced material. I think OhNoitsJamie's suggestion is a valid one. 85.211.69.142 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

LF: What's wrong with just saying that it's been inspected (on a particular date)? Since you yourself admit that an inspection has actually taken place, wouldn't it be accurate to say so? Maybe we should add a clarification that the inspection is no longer current, but I don't see why we should remove the inspection entirely. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is comprehensive; the interests of our readers are less important to us than you might think (there are some people who strongly disagree with this viewpoint, but I'm not one of them). --NYKevin @844, i.e. 19:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Question was the acquisition or lapsing of the CReSTeD certification ever documented in any reliable secondary sources? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No such secondary sources appear in the article at the moment... --NYKevin @864, i.e. 19:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this topic satisfy WP:SCH (notability for schools) WP:ORG, WP:N?

I came here because of the RFC, however reading through the article I think we have more significant problems than whether to mention the school's lapsed certifications. Could somebody kindly explain our basis for believing that this subject passes the notability criteria in WP:SCH. None of the links provided in the article pass the WP:RS test. The most impressive looking link (BBC) is does not actually count as a secondary source - it's an extended quotation from a member of the public about her recollections of the school during wartime. This is definitely a primary source. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, WP:SCH is tagged as a {{failed}} proposal. Perhaps you meant WP:GNG or WP:ORG? --NYKevin @915, i.e. 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction - yes, WP:N or WP:ORG are probably more appropriate. The question remains - does this subject satisfy the appropriate guidelines for notability? Here's a relevant essay which might shed light on this issue: User:Eusebeus/School_Notability --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Smells like a witch-hunt... 213.246.90.36 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you kindly explain what you mean? The basic question is whether this subject passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I just now noticed that this is a preparatory school (equivalent to an elementary/primary school in the US). I was under the impression that while high schools (secondary/sixth form schools in the UK) are usually notable enough, that's not the case for these types of schools. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at WP:NGO (as the school is presumably not-for-profit), I see that it might squeak by as a "nationally famous local organization", due to the top-ten ranking, but it seems to me that it ought to have more than that in order to be nationally famous. --NYKevin @884, i.e. 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree - it's definitely not an obviously famous school like Gordonstoun, or Eton College. It's not even a B-list school with some notable alumni like Repton School. The normal standard for demonstrating notability is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I'm not aware of an exception for British high-schools. It might be appropriate to simply move to an AFD discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Update - I've begun an AFD for this article. That's the appropriate place to discuss the notability of this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - I'll explain what I mean. I put it to you that the attempt to remove the CRESTED reference failed, now a couple more editors have been pulled in to delete the article. I put it to you that this has been done out of spite. But, in case I am incorrect and to call your bluff; if your argument regarding Prep School non notability it true, I now hold you to that and expect you to delete all of the Prep Schools listed in the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparatory_school_(United_Kingdom) as per your argued position. Clearly, if you don't then your argument to delete Woodleigh School is entirely disingenuous. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So you've just deleted the page? I give up. I'm not getting involved in this one - If you guys can't play by the rules. isfutile:P (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this article has not yet been deleted. I have merely begun a discussion about my proposal to delete this article. You are welcome to join this discussion and show how Woodleigh school meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I did not take part in the CRESTED discussion - I have no strong feelings about this question. I came to this article as a result of the very recent RFC. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced content

Could I please ask that editors do not delete large chunks of referenced content without discussing their reasons for wanting to do so here first and then obtaining a consensus. Dahliarose (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Add more referenced content by all means, but please leave the information that has already been added alone, at least until some sort of talkpage consensus is established for removing it. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I second that too. The mass removal is very unconstructive at this point and is not helpful for editors who may join the deletion discussion in future. And, it has now degenerated into an edit war. There's plenty of time to edit the article (with consensus) after the AfD, if the article is kept. Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD says otherwise, however I'm happy to comply with a consensus. My major issue remains - that some of the sources appear to be used in a way that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Be bold, indeed, but there are two more elements to WP:BRD... Thanks for holding off. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH concerns

We currently have a paragraph which reads:

"There is a School Council, made up of a pupil from each year-group, as well as a Band and a School Choir. The four houses at Woodleigh are North, South, East and West, and various competitions are run throughout the year to determine the winner of the House Cup at the end of the Summer Term. Woodleigh has a Senior Managaement Team, qualified teachers, and a range of peripatetic staff who teach music[7] and sport [8] [9] on a regular basis. Literature[10] and Writing[11], Reading[12], Drama and Creative Arts[13] are strengths of the school.""

None of the referenced sources comment on the structure of the school's house-system, the qualifications of it's teachers, the range of staff or the school's strengths. These articles seem to be mentions of achievements of individual students or on-off events which have taken place in the school. I believe this WP:SYNTH - it's original research. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Ive marked that last sentence with which alerts the reader to this. If the article is kept it's going to need a serious going over. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The first part of the paragraph seems to be original research. I'd suggest the school's own website would be an appropriate source for info about it's own governance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Its also very poorly structured. Are the band and school choir also members of the school council or something separate? There is no evidence in the references that the teachers for the subjects are either peripatetic or employed by the school. Its a right mess. Which I was trying to fix, before being accused of vandalism. Fmph (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This section should be easy to fix given that it's perfectly acceptable to use a primary source (e.g. a school prospectus) to explain how the school governs itself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This section does seem to be a bit of a mess. It is normal to include information about the subjects that a school teaches in a school article and the school website would be the most reliable source. Dahliarose (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dahliarose, the subjects listed above (Music, Sport, English lit, Drama, Art etc...) are amongst subjects taught at virtually every British prep-school. It's sort of like mentioning that a particular kind of car has four wheels. It's not in the least bit interesting because that is exactly what we would expect. FYI, teaching these subjects are a requirement of the national curriculum and the common-entrance exam programme.

In any case my original concern is the WP:SYNTH violation which I described at the top of this thread. That this information is also redundant and useless is an additional problem. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:OR (original research)

"The pupils are predominantly drawn from Beverley, Driffield, Filey, Malton, Nafferton,Norton-on-Derwent, Pickering, Pocklington, Scarborough,Seamer, Sherburn, Stamford Bridge and York."

This unsourced section is merely an incomplete list of the closest towns and villages to the school. Most schools (except for a few internationally famous schools) draw students from their local community. Furthermore, the addition of this section gives the reader an impression that the school is insignificant on a national or international level. We should remove this section on the basis that it is unsourced trivia which tells us nothing useful about the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this section has been changed slightly, but it still does seem somewhat trivial. Dahliarose (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the section now reads "The pupils are drawn from around East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. [3]". The reference is a link to a bus timetable which says nothing of where the school's pupils come from! Given that the school is in Yorkshire it is hardly surprising that most of the children who attend the school come from Yorkshire! --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

concerns WP:PUFFERY and misleading use of source

Currently we have a paragraph:

"Woodleigh has a top-ten ranking on IndependentSchools.com,^[21] which ranks the best independent and preparatory schools in the United Kingdom by means of independent reviews and rating."

First of all, the IndependantSchools.com does not currently list Woodleigh in it's top ten chart of English public schools. Secondly there's no mention on the linked page of any kind of top-ten rank.

The claim that independantschools.com ranks the "best independent and preparatory schools in the United Kingdom by means of independent reviews and rating" is pure opinion. We have no way of knowing whether this site provides sensible rankings or not.

Finally, even if this site did list Woodleigh as being top-ten, IndependentSchools.com is a site which solicits user reviews. It's a collection of WP:SELFPUB information. It's not a reliable secondary source as to the ranking or importance of the school.

This section is pure puffery and gives a misleading impression of the school's importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A very misleading use of the given source which states no such thing and is wrong to boot. It's in the top 12 for the subset of "independent coeducational schools in England". I've changed the source link to support that [1]. The previous link [2] was to description of the school, submitted by the school, with three "reviews", all by pupils or former pupils, hardly independent. The previous link also erroneously states that it is currently a member school of CReSTeD, when, as we know, it is not (see above). Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Are their rankings based on user-submitted data? If so then I'm doubtful that we can use this as a reliable source. I'm still concerned by the use of the phrase "ranks the best independent and preparatory schools in the United Kingdom by means of independent reviews and rating" - which seems to be a misleading summary of what the site actually does. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've recently changed that misleading bit to: which ranks independent and preparatory schools in the United Kingdom based on ratings from users of their website. The website states that quites explicitly at the bottom of all their rankings pages. Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I will state for the record that I do not think we should be using this source at all. Their methodology makes them a WP:QS questionable source for rankings of British schools. I will not remove it again, however if the consensus is to keep it I will refer the matter to RS/N. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's no a good idea to include information about rankings. Such rankings are transient measures and to cite one year out of context can be very misleading. I would suggest it is best to delete this sentence altogether. Dahliarose (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Salimfadhley and Dahliarose on this; a ranking based on a mere twelve reviews by pupils, former pupils and parents is neither stable nor encyclopedic. We should lose the sentence. Now if the school appeared in something like The Sunday Times top school's listing, that would be worth including (I'm not about to subscribe to it, but if any editor out there happens to have a subscription to The Times it would be worth checking whether or not Woodleigh is listed there). Yunshui 雲‍水 07:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Me too. :) As there was a moratorium at the time on removing references, I attempted to at least make what was in the article truthful and referenced to the proper page (neither of which had been the case). The reference itself does nothing to attest to the school's notability and is based solely on user-generated content. Both the sentence and the reference should go, in my view. A link to the school's entry page at the site, can be put in the external links section, if anyone insists, but that's all. Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about irrelivant information

Currently we have this paragraph:

"During the war the house had been visited by the Royal family and Winston Churchill.[6] The hall was registered as a Grade II listed building with English Heritage in 1951.[5]"

I am disputing the relevance of this to an article about the school. According to the source this event took place before the school moved to it's current address. Neither Winston Churchill nor the Royal Family ever had any connection to Woodleigh school. This anecdote might be more relevant to an article about the house.

Secondly, this paragraph implies that English Heritage (A QUANGO which did not exist in the 1950s) registered the building's listed status as a result of it's historical connections, however from what I can glean this source only notes it's age and architectural features. All of which are irrelevant to the school which currently leases the building!

Finally, I'm concerned by the overall poor use of sources in this article. It's as if a small number of editors have simply tried to insert every possible mention of the school in order to demonstrate notability without any regard to the plausibility, relevance and accuracy of the claims being made. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the school is located in a building that is of both historic and architectural importance seems to me to be highly relevant to an article about the school. I don't think the building merits an article in its own right, and it makes much more sense to include material about the building in the school article which is the current usage of the building. Also there are three notable alumni who need a home. It makes much more sense to link them to an article about the school rather than an article about the building. I agree that the sources haven't been used that well, and there is plenty of room for improvement. Dahliarose (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is almost certainly notable that one of the school's buildings is listed. My main concern here is with the irrelevant and insufficiently sourced claims, and the nonsensical implication that English Heritage registered a listed building 30 years before that organization existed in part because of it's historical connections with Churchill and Royalty.

Furthermore, the anecdote about the visit from Winston Churchill and (unspecified) members of the Royal Family is very inconclusive: We only have one source which alleges this, and it's very clear that Mrs Passmoore is simply recounting a story she has heard from some other (unspecified) source. She does not claim to have seen Churchill, the Royal Guards or the Royal Family herself. We are not told on which date Churchill visited this location, whether he was present with the Royals or even why they were there. This is a very questionable use of the source! --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Listed building status relates to architectural merit and has nothing to do with any associations with historical personalities. I've rearranged the text to make this clearer. On checking the source it appears that Churchill and the Royal Family came to see the Guards - they didn't go to see the house. I've added the word 'reputedly'. I would have thought a story like this could be backed up from contemporary sources. Dahliarose (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we are best removing this since we have no reliable evidence that this is even a local legend. FYI, an anon user is making reverts to the article. Your edits may become collateral damage in a revert war. --22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to the school building. A well known York based artist from the Victorian period (although I'm making no claims for notability!) Mary Ellen Best [3] painted a number of works at Langton Hall [4] which are detailed in this book [5] which I have access to. Do other editors think it is worth adding a brief mention and book citation in the -location- section?isfutile:P (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If the images are out of copyright they could be used as illustrations, but not as you say to indicate notability since the artist does not herself seem to have been particularly notable. By the way, be careful. Even if the original illustrations have lapsed copyright some institution or gallery may own rights on the scans. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's certainly worth mentioning and briefly describing the building the school occupies and it's definitely relevant to the article, although literally hundreds of UK schools now occupy listed buildings (the majority of which were not originally built as schools and simply purchased or leased by the schools which now occupy them). However, any detailed description of the building and its history belongs much more properly to Langton, North Yorkshire, where it (and the Norcliffe's) are a key aspect of the village's history and landscape. Langton had been the Norcliffe family's manor since the 1600s. Incidentally, Mary Ellen Best, was a member of the Norcliffe family and spent her childhood in the house. However, the school itself has no association with the Norcliffe family and its association with the building they once occupied is fairly recent, and only consists of leasing it. It would be different if it had been a building originally built for the school, e.g this, this or this. Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an image on WikiMedia Commons. Worth using or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Which image? Can you link to its page on Commons? If it's one of Best's paintings, I don't think it belongs in this article. Her depictions of early 19th century domestic life and the Norcliffe family have nothing to do with the school itself, and would more properly be placed in a description of Langton Hall and the Norcliffe family at Langton, North Yorkshire. Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about the cutting and pasting of selective negative inspection material

I don't understand why large chunks of negative inspection text are being cut and pasted; largely out of context. There are also positive aspects to the inspection reports, but these appear to have been omitted. My view is that cutting and pasting inspection material does not improve the article - but in any case, the selection of material should be balanced and provide a summary, rather than simply a cut and paste plagiarism. Is the link to Ofsted in the info box not sufficient? If editors believe this material is notable, perhaps they could advise why, referring to the relevant policies. isfutile:P (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I share this concern. We have all agreed not to make further edits until consensus is reached on the individual points. A rogue anonymous editor seems to be disregarding this agreement (and also the admin's request not to make substantial deletions until the next AFD resolves matters). --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was also going to raise this issue and I share the same concerns. Selective negative reporting is just as misleading as selectively citing positive reports and gives the issue undue weight. It also unbalanced to focus just on the recent OFSTED reports which represent only a tiny fraction of the school's history. Furthermore, it is very difficult to keep up with the edit history with rogue editors who are not abiding by the agreement to discuss edits here first. Dahliarose (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add a note to the rogue anon's talk-page. He or she may eventually realize that their actions might be hastening the deletion of this page (which I suspect is not their intended goal). --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be this editor [6] adding the inspection text [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you - was referring to this edit [8] in which an anon user removed text which I thought *was* relevant. Contrary to the editor's comment no consensus has been reached regarding this section. It's probably not appropriate to add or remove it right now but if the article is kept I'd have no objection to it's inclusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the addition of that chunk of text was a little one sided perhaps? Most school articles simply refer to the inspection report via the Ofsted link in the right hand info box. Is there a special reason why additional text is needed in this case?isfutile:P (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony - I think you seem to misunderstand the guidance around notability. Article content does not need to be notable. It just needs to be encyclopaedic. Let me give you an example: consider the article on Chelsea FC... Chelsea wear blue kit, they have a stadium, they have a squad, but none of that makes the Chelsea article notable. What makes the Chelsea article notable is the fact that they are a Premier League club, have a salubrious history, and have won a few trophies. But we dont just talk about the notable stuff in the article. We also talk about the strip, the stadium and the squad. So the inspection stuff doesnt affect the notability of the school article one iota, but it is commonly quoted in English school articles across the pedia. Inspection reports are really good sources for generating content. There is often good material in them. Personally I would expect most of the 'good' stuff in the reports to be used in the Education section of the article when we are finally allowed to write it. Not that an Education section based on an Ofsted report would affect notability in any sense... Fmph (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fmph - I don't think you understand the concept of notability on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with importance or notable exploits such as winning trophies. We have articles on all manner of non-notable subjects such as tiny villages and hamlets. These articles exist because there are sources that can be used to compile encyclopaedic articles. OFSTED articles are just one source that can be used to generate content for school articles, but it is important to keep a balance and not to cite selectively to present a particular point of view as is being done with the current edits. OFSTED reports are best used to provide general information about the school rather than focusing on the performance of a school in any one given year which is just a snapshot of the school's total history. Dahliarose (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just not true. I'm sure I could find plenty of references for our local football team, but because it is too far down the football pyramid, playing in loacl leagues, any attempt to create an article about the club would fail any AfD. Football has its rules on pedia. We dont just create articles on every team. Similarly with schools, there is a consensual agreement that primary schools are not inherently notable and need to establish notability in some other way rather than just with a bunch of refs. You are well aware that plenty of primary schools have failed AfD despite having a bunch of refs. Now, unfortunately with schools we havent yet codified this agreement into a formal guideline, but it will come. Fmph (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't have articles on local football teams because there are insufficient references to support encyclopaedic articles. Each article needs to be judged on its own merit. There is no consensus that primary schools, or indeed prep schools, are non-notable. Most won't merit an article because they only have trivial coverage. It's the sources that determine whether or not a subject merits an article not the type of school. Dahliarose (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good summary of the General Notability Guide - it's really all about the sources. That was the original source of my concern about this article and the reason I began the AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sport

Does anyone believe the references in the sports section support the text to which they are attached? Fmph (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you posed the question, another ref has been added and I've tweaked the text. I think these are fine, now. TerriersFan (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Current version

Sports classes are run every day,[28] and pupils compete at county and national level.[29][30]

Virtually every prep school has a daily sport programme and can point to pupils who have been selected for regional and national sports-teams. It's an unremarkable claim.

That's daft. If a child reached regional or national standard would you say to then: "Well done. That's unremarkable."213.246.125.63 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider it to be a remarkable or unusual thing that this school has a sports programme and that some of it's pupils have gone on to

If we are going to keep this section we should say "pupils have competed at county and national level" or "pupils have been selected for county and national teams" since we have no reliable information about current students. --Salimfadhley

Notability is not temporary. However on this point I agree since the text would then perfectly match the reference. Perhaps be more specific and put "pupils have competed at county and national level in Cricket and Football." The alternative "Pupils have been ... teams" isn't as accurate since the Cricket teams play as a school team in a county/regional final rather than as individuals selected for a county team (which may well have ALSO happened but there's no cite for that. Yet.)213.246.125.63 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "pupils have competed at county and national level in Cricket and Football" is perfectly acceptable. My concern remains that this statement could be said of virtually any British prep school --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence to back that up that assertion, I'd be happy to discuss it. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pupil Matthew Proctor, then aged 12, joined the 'Lord’s Taverners 100 Club'. He made an unbeaten 106 in an 88-run victory over Aysgarth School in a cricket match in July 2010.[31][32]

Is joining the 100 Club a significant sporting achievement? It appears to be a sporting themed club that almost cricket-fan could be invited to join. Furthermore, is a score of 106 a noteworthy result in a school fixture? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do some research before making comments like that which make me lose the will to live. [[9]] The Lord Taverners is a world famous organisation and being member of the 100 club is the pinnacle of any young cricketer's career. It is vetted, checked and very very very very few children achieve this each year. [[10]]213.246.125.63 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The club is indeed famous, however I'm disputing whether having a pupil invited into this club is a significant enough achievement for the school to mention it in the school's article! I think it gives undue weight to trivia. Matthew Proctor is not yet a notable cricketer. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest he was a notable cricketer? Actually you first disputed the notability of the club "Is joining the 100 Club a significant sporting achievement? It appears to be a sporting themed club that almost cricket-fan could be invited to join." Then you raised a very different dispute. The achievement in a school match was notable. Without the school he would not have been able to achieve the feat. (Cricket is not a solo sport). The 100 club is for those who have achieved such status. All prep schools (and clubs) submit these achievements, which are recognized by the 100 club by a certificate for the player and school or club. I'm concerned that you are simply trying to dispute anything and everything (for purposes unknown), and that your disputes are inherently disruptive and trivial. Before you write on here can you consider this: will my comment have a positive effect on the article?213.246.125.63 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I believe that responsible editors should avoid allowing articles to become a jumble of unimportant or trivial facts about the subject. It is neither trivial or disruptive to argue against the inclusion of unimportant trivia in an article.

Wikipedia generally does not consider sporting statistics from junior-league sports (except for in articles about notable sports-players). Furthermore I note that the top-five scoring Centurons (who played for a school-team) do not seem to have been mentioned in their school's Wikipedia article. There's simply no precedent for considering this kind of statistic or membership of the Centurions important enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope; national level achievements by school students are routine and acceptable content for school articles. What you are confusing is that individual elements and people mentioned in a page don't need to be notable themselves otherwise they would have their own page. Also to say "It appears to be a sporting themed club that almost cricket-fan could be invited to join." is a spectacular misrepresentation of the achievement. Finally, this boy achieved this award at age 12 which in itself is remarkable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

TerriersFan, I apologize if my sporting jargon is incorrect, however as I understood this story, Matthew's century occurred in an under 13s inter-school match. He was playing for his school team not a national team. Aysgarth School[11] is about 100km away in Yorkshire. In summary it's a match between two prep-schools in adjacent counties. We cannot call this a "national level achievement" since his Taverners' award was given for his performance in this specific match.

Can you point to a precedent for including statistics from individual inter-school U13s fixtures in an article about a school? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Listed buildings

The Images of England website indicates that a gateway 200 metres to the east of Langton Hall is listed. I cannot identify from online sources if this gateway is part of the school premises. The page can be found here. Can anyone help?

That's a different Langton (there are far too many off them!) I think it's Little Langton. The picture of the gates [12] (with a rather green light) which is already on the article, is the correct one of the gates at the entrance to the Hall. They have stone greyhounds on the top - the motif of the Norcliffe family. I believe these gates, and the Norcliffe Arms next door are listed. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The gates with the greyhounds are listed and I've already added a note about that with a reference. Dahliarose (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

[13]These are the cottages next to the school. They used to be staff housing, but unfortunately I can't provide a source for that. [14] These are the same gates in this picture [15] and that's [16] the school with two minibuses which miserably fail notability, although the lawn looked good at that point. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

[17] This is the Norcliffe Arms listing, which is right next to the gates. The was used as staff housing from the inception of the school at Langton, and is referred to extensively in Joanna Passmore's book [18]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

213.246.90.36, have you spent much time at Woodleigh School? I'm starting to suspect that you may have some kind of association with this institution. If that is the case I'd advise you not to make any further edits to the article (however well meaning). --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How downright rude! I have suspicions in equal measure that you are a troll who gets a kick out of attempting to irritate people; specifically by pontificating on talk pages and making wildly off the mark claims about sources which are never ever based on hard fact. A patently warped analogy - they seem to be popular here - History, according to Salim - The Titanic sank. Therefore it must be the case that the ship had a hole in it before it left Ireland. It must have done. I believe it did therefore everyone else has to prove that it didn't otherwise you must all bow to logic of Salim or face the consequences of pages and pages of confused argument. Some people have said there was an iceberg involved but that it conveniently melted. I find that suspicious. Without evidence of that iceberg it is clearly not verifiable, and I can't find any evidence of that iceberg existing today. Anyone who does find evidence of an iceberg clearly has a WP:COI doesn't know WP:ORG is unaware of WP:POV and their argument does not hold water. Besides if the iceberg melted, then it wouldn't pass notability because water is really common. A google search for "water" demonstrates this. Therefore the Salim theory that there was a hole on leaving Ireland is the best one and I will denounce anyone who argues otherwise with a plethora of rules and regulations until they die of frustration or boredom, or both; meaning I get my own way. The end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.125.63 (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I found your comment rather witty, but I note with dismay that aside from your interesting iceberg-related digression you evaded my question. I'd urge you to simply read the relevant policy and let us know if you feel that you might have some kind of conflicting association. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't learn do you? Stop making demands. I'm not your bitch. I don't have to answer to you. No I do not have any association with the school. I do not act for them. I do not have any conflicting association. More to the point, you have no right to suspect, let alone ask - and that I find grossly offensive. Can you not see how your rudeness upsets people? Do you really not appreciate the lack of humility in your statements? You could do well to sit and read some of the comments you have made, and consider how the other party will react when reading them. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ofsted reports

Hmm, I'm late to this page but we seem to have a regrettable edit war on these in/out reports. My view is that quotations are, by their nature, bound to be selective and should be omitted. OTOH the inspections, and overall assessment, have to be mentioned and we can't duck that a welfare etc plan was required. My suggestion is:

"The school was inspected by Ofsted in February 2010, and was graded as "satisfactory" overall.[18] However the inspector required the school to produce an action plan to improve the health, welfare and safety of pupils. Monitoring visits were conducted in January[19] and June 2011[20] to ensure that appropriate action was taken. A monitoring Social Care inspection was carried out by Ofsted in January 2012.[21]"

This tells the readers what the main judgement was and they can look up the relevant report for the detail. TerriersFan (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a very honorable attempt at a solution, and I appreciate your time and effort into look at it. However, I disagree. Very, very few other school pages ever have substantive quotes from Ofsted. The norm is for a link from the info box. Every school has an Ofsted report - so there is no inherent notability unless there's something significant and different. For example - an Outstanding oftsted, or a Failed - ie Special Measures Ofsted. This report is a "Satisfactory" with a few items required for an action plan. It was not even notable enough to merit coverage in the local press. To give an indication of how 'common' as satisfactory is, almost 1 in 3 schools receive this 'class' of Ofsted rating. I believe the real reason this piece keeps getting added is as retaliation for the consensus over the CRESTED reference, which certain editors tried so hard to get removed. This is the only plausible reason why completely negative material is being added, rather than a balanced set of quotes. I propose a TRUCE between all parties - remove both sections - Ofsted and Crested - and rely on the info box for inspection reports, which is the norm for school articles. I don't agree with it particularly, but if that is the only way to deal with these editors then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.90.36 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect you may have a conflict of interest in regards to this article. Can you confirm that you don't work at the school and are not associated with it? There are plenty of quotations from inspection reports included in school articles. For example ...

• The_Beacon_School,_Banstead#Ofsted
• Endeavour High School
• Denefield_School#Special_Measures
• Sheldon_School#Ofsted_and_academic_achievement
• St_James's_Church_of_England_School_and_Sports_College#Ofsted_Outstanding
• St_Thomas_More_Catholic_School#Academic_standards
• Ash_Manor_School#Ofsted
• Sir_John_Leman_High_School#Ofsted_Reports

And there are plenty more out there. Go and have a good look around. To suggest anything else is disingenuous. Fmph (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And given tat I was not involved in anyway in the CRESTED discussion/disagreement, and that I was the one who introduced the Ofsted stuff, it's a bit rich to suggest there is a link between the 2. The reason I decided to introduce an Ofsted ref was because it solved my request for a citation wrt the school being a CoE school. It was when I read the Ofsted report tat I noticed that Ofsted confirmed that the school is a CoE school. I also felt it was encyclopaedic to highlight that the inspectors had serious reservations in a specific area. Way hasn't been made clear is that Ofsted were acting on behalf of the independent schools inspectorate in doing this. This is objective, WP:NPOV, and encyclopaedic. I can see no reason to remove it. Fmph (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the infobox solution is the most appropriate one, both in the interests of stability and WP:NPOV. Using a fairly average Ofsted report to highlight the school's shortcomings is definitely not neutral, even if the bare facts are verifiable. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't sound like NPOV to me.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Removing the judgements of Ofsted is anything but NPOV. The result will be that editors cannot now use the best independent, neutral, objective, secondary source there is for a school in England, to validate anything educational about a school. They are available for every state school in England, and many independent schools, and pronounce on good and bad. We go down this route, and we'll be slicing af the content from most English schools. Fmph (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If the problem is balance, then let's set about addressing that. Let's use the source to write a decent Education section. But don't throw away the baby with the bath water. Fmph (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree if there was a major judgemet in there, but is there really anything noteworthy in the Ofsted report? Looking at the most recent one, it seems that the school tightened their risk assessment measures slightly, dealt with a couple of missing floor tiles, checked that their teachers weren't criminals or illegal immigrants and fitted some new showers. None of that is really worthy of exposition in the article. A link to the report makes the information available to curious readers, but there's no need to take up article space with details of how they replaced the carpet in the Art block. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are not quoting from the last inspection at all. That's from the last monitoring visit. The last inspection was in Feb 2010, where the 'satisfactory' judgement was made. But in highly unusual, and notable, circumstances, the inspectors were sufficiently concerned by an 'unsatisfactory' judgement in the area of health, safety and welfare to require follow-up monitoring visits. This is a highly unusual action for a satisfactory inspection. Usually monitoring inspections are reserved for schools in special measures or given Notice to Improve. That's what is notable in this case, that it required not 1, but 2 follow-up monitoring visits. This, on foot of the social care inspections which are not linked from the inspections page. These too required follow-up inspections. I believe the previous inspection content was very balanced. Fmph (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That last comment is complete rubbish. As a former Inspector myself I can confirm your comments are simply fiction. It is not only common but normal practice for a school to receive a follow up to for items highlighted on the report or on an action plan. To repeat: it is normal - written in stone - and expected. You cannot pick and choose quotes from these inspection to suit your own end, and you must not claim a report is "unsatisfactory" or "failing" when the concluding comments grade the school as "satisfactory". There are very clear rules in terms of how the press, or any other medium, can report the outcome of inspections and these most certainly also apply here. I've send a copy of this page to the provision provider for this school since there may be defamation issues with some of the comments made. I would warn you that other parties might take action. That's not a legal threat from me - I don't have that authority - simply guidance and a friendly word that your actions in portraying fiction as fact might land you in hot water. isfutile:P (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a case of WP:BLP. It's a small commercial organisation. Balance needs to be balanced. Fmph (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right; I was looking at the monitoring inspection report rather than the earlier visit report, thanks for clarifying. However, I'm still unable to see what there is in the 2010 report that's of exceptional interest. Some incorrectly filed risk assessments (since corrected), some more background checks required on staff (also corrected); that's about it. If you're trying to make an argument that the very existence of subsequent visits indicates extraordinary circumstances, that's fringing on original research; we would need a source (Ofsted themselves would probably suffice) which claimed that monitoring inspections after a satisfactory visit were highly unusual. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The OFSTED reports for this small private school cannot be compared to OFSTED reports for state schools. The emphasis in the reports for this school is on the social welfare of the children and health and safety, the Disability Discrimination Act, etc., and includes trivial matters such as lack of privacy for bathing arrangements. The reports provide no information on encyclopaedic matters that we would normally include in school articles such as the subjects that are taught and the range of extra-curricular activities. The content of these reports is completely irrelevant for an encyclopaedic article on a school. It is quite unbalanced to focus on these health and safety issues to the exclusion of any other matters relating to this school and it is unbalanced to focus on three recent inspection reports without putting them into context with inspection reports from previous years, though these are not available online. Inspection reports, like league tables, only give a snapshot of a school's performance at one point in time, and it can be highly misleading to quote single years or a few years in isolation. Similarly, citing the Crested report gives an equally unbalanced view, especially as the school is no longer a member.Dahliarose (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the most widespread independent and objective source for schools is somehow unreliable, and that the health, safety and welfare of pupils is irrelevant is laughable. Fmph (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you might see some WP:OR, however I'm not suggesting that our entire conversation and explanation here on the talk page should copied into the article. The text that was removed is very simple and amply supported by the references. The point in dispute is whether it is a balanced view. Now you may think that risk assessments, CRB checks and the health, safety and welfare are not very important, but isn't that just your own POV, rather than a balanced view? The expert (the inspector) deemed it sufficiently important to require monitoring visits. This was a school which was failing in its legal requirements. Do you really think that's not notable and encyclopaedic? And its instructive to note that Ofsted conducted the monitoring visits on behalf on the independent school inspectorate who had the responsibility for ensuring compliance. This is not a burdensome state bureaucracy saying this, its a trade association discussing one of its members. Fmph (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is disputing the reliability of OFSTED reports. The question is whether or not the material contained within OFSTED reports is of encyclopaedic interest. Health and safety issues are of course important but we don't normally include such details in articles about schools or other organisations. The issues highlighted in the first OFSTED report all appear to have been fixed so it seems completely irrelevant to include this information now. We cannot expect to include in school articles detailed accounts of all the health and safety issues encountered over the years and it is unbalanced to focus on a single year in isolation. Bureaucracies inevitably create a lot of paperwork, but the material in not necessarily encyclopaedic. We are of course each entitled to our opinion, but you seem to be the only one who considers this information important. Dahliarose (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of good reasons why we might include a reference to an ofstead report, for example if the report finding was itself notable (e.g. very bad or very good and a reliable secondary source such as a newspaper commented on it), or if the report is the most recent examination of the school (since that is the most useful thing to know). Can any of these reasons be applied in this case? --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The tarring of the Ofsted references with a much abused health&safety tarbrush is a really nice attempt at obfuscating the issues. The problems identified by Ofsted wer primarily related to children's welfare, as opposed to health and safety. They were about child protection issues, which does include health and safety in its brief. And you can pretend they were trivial and incidental, but the fact remains that they required 3 follow-up visits by Ofsted to ensure they addressed properly and at no time has Ofsted stated unequivocally that the school has address them all completely. I think that focussing on the latest inspection is valid. And when the school is once more inspected, the article can updated with the latest information at that time. It is entirely encyclopaedic to use the latest information as a source and a reference. Fmph (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The real issue here is that OFSTED reports are primary sources, just as the Crested report is a primary source. We have a situation where editors are each trying to interpret these primary sources and adding their own spin in line with their own opinions. It's really neither here nor there what I think or what Fmph thinks, it is how the primary sources are interpreted in secondary sources that counts. We effectively have original research here where editors are try to interpret these reports themselves and cite from them selectively and not setting the reports in the appropriate context. To answer Sailmfadhley's question, OFSTED reports do sometimes get reported in local newspapers, usually if they receive an outstanding rating or if the school is put into special measures. I can't find any newspaper reports relating to the inspections at Woodleigh. It tends to be the worst-performing schools that attract the attention of secondary sources. For The Ridings School for example it is entirely appropriate to quote from OFSTED reports as they were widely cited in the national press. There might well be a need to cite the latest inspection report but in this case the most recent report is rather brief and focused on issues like flooring, bathing facilities and the general state of the accommodation rather than the education of the pupils. We don't normally include information about such matters in school articles. This is also not by any means a typical OFSTED report. All the OFSTED reports for this school have a much narrower focus than the usual OFSTED reports as they are concerned primarily with the boarding provision and the related health and safety and child welfare issues which in itself offers an unbalanced view of the school. Normally independent schools get inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate, but I cannot find any recent report from the ISI. Dahliarose (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ISI inspections are done every six years unless the school is failing, in which case there are more regular inspections. The last report on the ISI site is dated 2007. The Ofsted reports are all "Satisfactory" in rating, a mixture of 2s and predominantly 3s. I can't find any 4 ratings which indicates a failure, or any statutory notices of the type The Ridings would have received. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The most recent ISI report (2007) [19]. It is not favourable, and wasn't just the decor. I'm sort of neutral on summarizing the OFSTED/ISI reports, although I tend to agree with Dahliarose, that if there is no secondary source which has reported or interpreted the outcome, it probably isn't appropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. How did you find that report as I couldn't find it anywhere on the ISI site. Summarising the contents of all these reports would effectively be original research, as the interpretation is not straightforward. The reports could still be used to support basic uncontroversial facts. Dahliarose (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm astonished that the school was last inspected approximately five years ago. Can we be absolutely certain that this is the latest report? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find evidence to suggest otherwise, then Yes Salim, we can. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@Dahliarose, I couldn't find it anywhere on the site either, but was successful using the search term "Woodleigh School" site:.isi.net. When I said "summarise", I was referring to something like what TerriersFan suggested at the very top of this section. But as I said, I tend to agree with you that it's probably better to leave even that out unless it's been reported by a secondary source.

@Salimfadhley, the last full report done by the ISI was in 2007, but three years later it had a full report from OFSTED as an "Independent School Inspection Report". Boarding schools also get special reports every 3 years which focus only on the health and safety/welfare aspects, i.e. these. Apparently the two inspectorates are now in the process of "meshing" their report cycles.

Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally a summary along the lines that TerriersFan has suggested would be appropriate but because of the complex nature of these reports and the specific focus on health and safety issues, any summary is going to present a misleading impression of the school and a long complicated description would be required to put the inspections in context which would be original research. I would suggest it might be more appropriate to wait until the school has its next ISI inspection which presumably is due next year as this will present a more accurate picture. Dahliarose (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Year of Food and Farming

There seems to be a minor edit war underway wrt the correct title of the programme which the card game was to be part of. I have done a bit of research and it is clear to me that the programme was titled "Year of Food and Farming". A google search for that title returns 300K+ hits. The reference used mentions the "National Year of Food and Farming". A google search for that returns only 4K+ hits. Of course Google isnt case sensitive and a quick perusal of the results will show a pretty even distribution between "National Year of Food and Farming" and it's lower case compadre "national Year of Food and Farming". It's obvious to me that this is a case of the word "National" being tagged on to various press releases, sometimes with a capital, sometimes without. The campaign is called "Year of Food and Farming". Fmph (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This provides the context in which the card-game was invented, however it does not address the issue of whether this card-game should be included in the article. It's clear that The Grocer magazine was helping to advertise this project rather than report on it as news. The only sources we have about this game are clearly wp:advertising. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I phoned the Grocer this afternoon, who have looked at your comments. They don't do advertorials. Never have done apparently. [20] page 5 shows this was developed by the children. Also, the project was clearly defined as NFP in all the literature I've seen. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like original research to me. In any case could you kindly share the details of this call. Who did you call, what exactly did they say and have you had any prior contact with this publisher? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I called Rob Brown, the Features editor today because I was concerned about the accuracy of the comments above. I've had no contact with him or the Grocer previously. My concern was that the comments above are merely bare assertion and assumptions, phrases in an authoritative manner which might confuse other editors and appear, erroneously, to be fact. The Grocer confirmed those concerns. By all means, contact them to confirm. I don't know why you think this is "original research" - I'm not seeking to add the details of this call to the article. However, I do think that an accurate and reliable appraisal of the information is important and should be made openly and transparently available to this talk page - to try and ensure that no-oone is confused or misled by some of the previous inaccurate assumptions. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I might add that you could try to phrase your comments more politely. You have a habit of demanding, or even commanding other users to do things on your behalf. "Who did you call, what exactly did they say and have you had any prior contact with this publisher?" I don't like your interrogative tone. It might help everyone if you learned some manners and humility. Where I come from insinuation and blunt demands are considered downright rude. I've explained myself to my satisfaction. If you want to research for yourself, by all means do. However, please do not make any more rude demands of me. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Articles like this [21] certainly appear to be advertorial in nature. Do you dispute this? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, along with pretty much everything else you have said. I like to read something, analyse it, and make a judgement based on the evidence and fact. You appear to read something, look for something which isn't there, and then make assumptions on what wasn't said or evidenced. I believe my approach is more accurate, and in line with the rest of the civilized world and human race. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We have both read the article. What other facts would you need in order to determine whether this text is written in the style of an advertorial? Does the text not speak for itself? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the Grocer doesn't do advertorials. Reading a sample of Grocer magazines whether past or present reveals that. Why? Because it's a industry magazine. [[22]] It reports on news across the industry and has to maintain an unbiased position with regard to the subject of the news pieces otherwise, as a journalistic entity, it would lose all credibility. Secondly, to advertise something, there has to be a product for sale [[23]]and there is no product for here. There is an initative to place a pack of cards, designed to teach nutrition, into every school for free - for the benefit of education. There's plenty of detail regarding fundraising to achieve this aim, but there's no evidence of a commercial entity or activity designed for profit. In short, 'advertising' is not an appropriate term. The initiative was considered newsworthy by the Grocer and thus 'promoted'. As an analogy: the DfE is about to bring in a new ICT teaching initiative. It will no doubt feature the delivery of free teaching materials produced by the government and other agencies into every school. The industry teaching press, the TES, will cover or "promote" those free materials since they represent newsworthy material. But that isn't advertising - there's no product and as a Ferengi might ask, where's the profit? Finally, in the UK, advertorials are regulated under law. Specifically, the Advertising Standards Authority requires advertorials to be clearly marked as such. This news item is not. [[24]]213.246.125.63 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you used the word 'promoted'. The word "promote" is a common synonym for "advertise". The article is clearly promoting an investment opportunity in this project. That clearly falls within the the scope of WP:ADVERTISING. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You comment with such glee! Firstly the article does not mention anything about an investment opportunity. You simply made that one up. The words "invest", or "investment" are not present in the article. [[25]] Then, hoping people miss the little bit of fiction, you are subverting the definition of the word "invest" to imply there is a "return" ie profit. There isn't and unless you can prove otherwise, your assertion doesn't stack up. Nowhere is a profit making investment opportunity detailed in any of the sources, nor has any such implication been inferred in the article text. I'm a History graduate, and there's a term for what you are doing - it's called "source mining". This is where a writer looks for anything to twist to support their pre-conceived thesis, rather than analyzing what is in front of them objectively, and making an informed discovery based on the evidence. It's generally considered really poor scholarship. Also, regarding your WP:ADVERTISING link, this policy states: "All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." Which this section fully complies with. So, even if the section was "advertising",which it clearly isn't, it would still be acceptable. IF you feel so strongly that this advertising, put it to the test. Send it to AFD as per WP:ADVERTISING and quote your reasons. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to refer this matter on to RS/N which is the appropriate forum for this kind of debate. My conclusion is that the three Grocer sources are clearly promotional articles which solicit money and are not objective. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do that then. It would be good to get some objective eyes on this. Do bear in mind you will need hard evidence to support your assertion at WP:RS/N 213.246.125.63 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:COI (conflict of interest) editing

I'd like to know if anybody actively editing this article has a current or past association with Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire or any other kind of interest in the subject which might be a violation of the WP:COI policy? It's almost never a good idea to make COI edits, since it arouses suspicion and could discredit your contributions. Furthermore, if you do suspect that you might have a COI and declare it, you could help share your expertise on the topic and make the article better as an WP:EXPERT. Even if you have a COI, you will still be encouraged to discuss the subject in the article's talk-page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How downright rude! I have suspicions in equal measure that you are a troll who gets a kick out of attempting to irritate people; specifically by pontificating on talk pages and making wildly off the mark claims about sources which are never ever based on hard fact. A patently warped analogy - they seem to be popular here - History, according to Salim - The Titanic sank. Therefore it must be the case that the ship had a hole in it before it left Ireland. It must have done. I believe it did therefore everyone else has to prove that it didn't otherwise you must all bow to logic of Salim or face the consequences of pages and pages of confused argument. Some people have said there was an iceberg involved but that it conveniently melted. I find that suspicious. Without evidence of that iceberg it is clearly not verifiable, and I can't find any evidence of that iceberg existing today. Anyone who does find evidence of an iceberg clearly has a WP:COI doesn't know WP:ORG is unaware of WP:POV and their argument does not hold water. Besides if the iceberg melted, then it wouldn't pass notability because water is really common. A google search for "water" demonstrates this. Therefore the Salim theory that there was a hole on leaving Ireland is the best one and I will denounce anyone who argues otherwise with a plethora of rules and regulations until they die of frustration or boredom, or both; meaning I get my own way. The end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.125.63 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, please drop the stick on this and disengage. Salim, whilst COI editors are encouraged to reveal their connections to a subject there is no actual requirement for them to do so (WP:COI, lead, 3rd paragraph). Since the IP editor has repeatedly refused your demands to identify whether or not they have any relationship to the school, you can safely assume that further insistence will be met with equal resistance. They don't have to declare a COI if they don't want to, assuming they even have one.

IP user, please rein in the personal attacks; "troll" is particularly insulting and your ad hominem caricature above (copypasted from higher on the page, I note) is utterly inappropriate. Incivility is counterproductive to community editing and usually leads to blocks. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

1) I have repudiated any links with the school. 2)I respond - I do not initiate. I have a right to respond to what I consider to be personal attacks. The remarks above were 'in kind'. 3)If there is no provocation, there can be no response. Therefore, if the two editors involved in here desist from such provocation, I can guarantee that I will not have to make any further comment on this page (or any related page)'''Italic textItalic text'. Therefore I believe the onus is on the other two editors. 4) I agree with your other points. 5) There are a number of editors here who are trying very hard to improve this article. They should be commended. There are two editors who are trying very hard to prevent improvement in the article. That should not be commended. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to respond. You choose to. It's free will and choice. Lets not pretend otherwise. Fmph (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to provoke. You choose to. It's free will and choice. Let's not pretend otherwise.213.246.125.63 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly second Yunshui's request. By all means discuss the neutrality, verifiability, and encyclopedic appropriateness of edits. Wrangling over the putative motivations of the editors behind the edits is profoundly unconstructive and frankly boring the pants off the rest of us. I'm talking to both sides here, drop the COI/troll sticks. As the closing admin said at the AfD:

When the discussion restarts, the focus should be on whether the school meets the GNG, and no comments whatsoever should be made here or elsewhere about other editors.

- Voceditenore (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)