Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 23 April 2012

Yorkshire Start‑class Low‑importance

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Unsorted Error: No RfC category specified When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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", Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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/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)

1. http://www.crested.org.uk/regpro.html
2. http://www.crested.org.uk/geo.html

• Start-Class Yorkshire articles
• Low-importance Yorkshire articles
• WikiProject Yorkshire articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment