Talk:Stanbridge Earls School/Archive 1

Untitled

To Brakspear: Please be aware that you appear to be using the article on Stanbridge Earls as a personal comments page and not an encyclopaedia. The paragraph on The Wyverns Society is a case in point. Please avoid personal comment/attitude and ONLY use sourced, independent information. I suggest that you re-write the offending pages before they are struck-out under the "own-research" rule. Captainclegg (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

>I am a former purple of stanbridge earls. lord greenway will no longer have the right to the title lord of stanbridge earls and sit in the upper house due to lords reform this is fact not opinion. I also edited the wyverns section due to what were inappropriate comments and personal opinions posted by another user. I do not se how this can be vandiliserm.

I assume that by former "purple" you probably mean "pupil". The issue of Lord Greenaway not being able to sit in the House of Lords may or may not be fact, but your statement Under Labours new proposals for lords reform the title will disappear if labour wins the next election is a politically slanted personal view and as such is vandalism under wiki terms. It is regarded as "personal research" and as such is not allowed. Try and keep personal attitude out of editing. Wiki is an encyclopaedia and as such must be sourced properly. I also suggest that you use spellcheck more often and please always sign your postings. Captainclegg (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from re-listing deleted and/or disputed lines. If you are identified as continuing to vandalise a page you may be banned from editing which would be sad for you, who are new to Wikipedia. You keep replacing Marc Sinden with the name Marcus Sinden. 1.) Do you have any sourced proof that they are one and the same person? and 2.) If it is the same person, it is usual in Wiki to use their commonly used or professional name as recognition. Please continue to enjoy Wiki, but try and be guided with the rules. Good luck. Captainclegg (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been warned repeatedly about not including personal opinion, original research and un-sourced gossip. Further transgressions may result in you being reported for persistent transgression and vandalism. I have been trying to help you avoid this but am now getting seriously bored with you just writing your own article without any sources or proof. It may result in the entire article being deleted. Please take note. Captainclegg (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Stanbridge Earls

Thanks for taking this on. I have been un-doing un-sorced edits and sending the obviously new editor messages on his talk page and on the article talk page and either he doesn't read them, or doesn't respond, or is just being malicious and continuing to write a whole article, full of personal opinion and original research without ANY sources! Captainclegg (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I've been watching. Its been noted. I suggest let User talk:Brakspear finish and then the administrators will just delete the article - now that its flagged up - as un-sourced and un-corroborated. Berettagun (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a joke

This reads like a poor quality internet fanpage rather than an encyclopaedia article. I would dearly like to delete 80% of this cruft. --92.10.206.218 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. The writer (an SPV?) does not bother with any sources or replying to any TP's. It all seems to be original research. Captainclegg (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a (huge) amount of un-sourced original research, leaving hopefully a basic information page. However it is still un-sourced and should therefore only be regarded as a compromise solution until someone, following proper Wiki rules, re-writes the article using acceptable source material. Captainclegg (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"significant"

"While many sixth formers transfer to university, a significant number go to colleges of Further Education or directly into employment." Is the number significantly large or significantly small? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a verifiable source for this one!

"The Main House is haunted by several ghosts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of sex abuse at the school

While this may play an important part in the history of the school it should not be at the header. Maybe a section further down the article or, if it is warranted, an dedicated article on it's own.. Have a look at other articles about schools to see the layouts. Rocketrod1960 (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued censorship of page regarding allegations at Stanbridge Earls

Most of it is allegations. Many published by newspapers based on a quite vicious slander campaign led by [retracted]. [retracted] especially, being well informed with regards to special needs children, should understand that these allegations should be left for the appropriate authorities to deal with rather than trial by press. Who is going to be responsible when one of the special needs pupils on this school misinterprets these allegations and commits suicide.............. Think and put the the safety of these children first rather then intricate need to publish allegations on a Wikipedia page which was originally created by the pupils. Kind regards, Gerben

In the first place a brief, cursory look at my editing history and/or that of the Stanbridge Earls School site would show you quite clearly that I have NEVER edited the page before, so I do not appreciate your assertion that you were removing vandalism and Breach of neutral point of view policy...same person under different name at it again. That is a VERY serious allegation to make to any long-standing editor. Sock-puppetry is a serious and unforgivable sin in Wiki editing policy, let alone vandalism. Secondly, you state that the page was originally created by the pupils, that in-itself is a breach of the WP:NPOV rules. Wikipedia is not a fan-site, it is an encyclopaedia and must be well-sourced. If information is untrue, unsourced or in violation of the Defamation rules, any wrong or harmful information can and will be removed immediately. Further, your constant removals are placing you in danger of breaching the WP:3RR guidelines and I strongly suggest that you take care. You also state that what has been written on the page are "allegations". I would suggest to you that the source clearly shows that these have been taken from the 35-page JUDGEMENT of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Trust (SENDIST), a body operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice to consider appeals of children. Hardly allegations. Whatever Julia Maynards reasons behind her 'whistle-blowing' are of no concern to a responsible encyclopaedia like Wikipedia, which deals with sourced material. I am sorry if all this sounds harsh to a new editor, but you must be more judicious in your wording and act within the long-established Wiki rules - which work rather well. I hope you enjoy further Wiki editing. Manxwoman (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Manxwoman, I apologise for mistaken you for the previous poster which posted very similar material. Your sources in the article relate mainly to newspaper articles. I'm still amazed that you seem to prefer to post this rather then given the benefitt of doubt to safeguard these pupils. What is so important that sets the safety of these children aside? Why is this post so important to you?

I do not have the time or inclination to discuss the reasons behind inclusions into any encyclopaedia, suffice it to say that that is the reason for an encyclopaedia. Shared, sourced knowledge. 99.9% of all sources in Wiki are from print. How else could they be verified? Long-standing editors double-check the sources and remove them if they do not back-up the assertion. As for the benefitt (sic) of doubt to safeguard these pupils, I suggest that you read the full judgement for your answer. I have no personal beef with the subject matter, but I do have a serious problem with someone, anyone, trying to censor properly sourced information. There have been multiple consensus on censorship on Wiki, all with the same concluPsion. But if you wish to start another consensus, feel free. But in the meantime you may not remove properly sourced information from an article for any reason, let alone a personal one or you will find yourself blocked. Manxwoman (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Manxwoman, I've read the tribunal judgement very carefully and multiple times. But I still feel that whatever mistakes the school has made its a matter for the police and other authorities to investigate and untill they have finished we need to make sure we do not jeopardise the emotional well being and safeguarding of these pupils. It's sad to see you prefer the urge to publicise over the welfare of them. Kind regards, Gerben

And until such time, or the published facts change, the knowledge of the judgement must be freely available. Who are you to decide what should and should not be read? How would you have dealt with the Jimmy Saville exposure? The police cannot ever come to a definitive conclusion as he is dead, so he will never be "guilty" in the eyes of the law as he can never be tried. Under your reasoning therefore, that information would never be published. And I am not publicising it, I am publishing it. Very, very different. Manxwoman (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you partly and have published additional properly sourced material from the same published media you used to get a more balanced and neutral point of view across. Kind regards, Gerben

I think your idea of "a more balanced and neutral point of view" leaves a lot to be desired. I refer you to WP:NPOV rules. I have therefore, in an attempt at compromise, re-worded your most recent edit to make it more encyclopaedic. One womans views with a vested interest, even if sourced, are unlikely to outweigh the judgement of an official government body or the police and as interesting or passionate as they are, have no place in an encyclopaedia. Otherwise you would need to quote the opinion of every single parent in the group or not. You must understand and appreciate that Wiki (as with any encyclopaedia) has a 'house-style' and rules for neutrality and so avoids very obvious attempts by groups or individuals to promote or advertise a subject (WP:NOTPROMOTION). You have already stated that this page was originally created by the pupils, which has flagged up serious concerns. A very brief look at the page and the editing history shows that a very small group of individual editors, one in particular and also including one sock-puppet, have worked almost exclusively on this page. This flags up even more concerns. The article contains reams of unverifiable information, little of which is sourced. This is another problem (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). If you have a personal interest in this page/subject, I urge you to start getting verifiable sources, not lifted straight from the schools prospectus. Manxwoman (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Manxwoman, It is sad that if I post an well sourced article from exactly the same newspaper which shows the other side of the argument you remove it mostly and add the phrase " according to a local newspaper" to limit the credibility although it's the same source in three of your citations. Let me make one thing clear. I'm not part of the school, or work for them but do associate with the children and feel that the current way the school is portrayed is very biased and partisan to inflict maximum damage through different media. Your conduct clearly shows you have relation ship or invested interest. I will revert our disagreements up to a higher level so more people can get involved from Wikipedia and help to solve our clearly conflicting views.

Kind regards,

Gerben

Is it not a local newspaper? I did not refer to the Daily Mail as a national newspaper or the BBC as a national broadcaster as most people are aware of that fact. I was trying to help any reader to know where the quote came from. It is your choice and your right, obviously, to ask for a consensus, but for the record I have no relation ship or invested interest (sic) with the subject matter at all and I look forward to the consensus with great interest. Manxwoman (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For your further information, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and suggest that you study it carefully. Manxwoman (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Manxwoman,

You are falsely aquising me of disruptive editing. The contribution I made was a properly verifiable sourced article from the BBC news highlighting the reviews the CPS has made with regards to the alleged rape case and the outcome of those. Very essential and trivial information when such allegations are made. Your editing is diruptive and vandalisme.

You have previously stated (above) that you are going to "revert our disagreements up to a higher level so more people can get involved from Wikipedia and help to solve our clearly conflicting views." In the meantime do NOT make further changes to the Stanbridge Earls School site or they will be immediately reverted and you will be reported for persistent vandalism to the page. You appear to be deliberately flouting the editing rules for Wiki and therefore have also received your last warning for persistent vandalising on your Talk Page. There is nothing more to be said. Manxwoman (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning to all editors: please respect the welfare and safeguarding of the pupils at this school

This page has been subject to several disruptive editing efforts and content disputes.

It is very important to realise that some of the allegations made are partisan and out of context with regards to Wikipedia NPOV (neutral point of view ) policies.

HOWEVER HIGH THE DESIRE TO PUBLISH IT SHOULD NEVER JEOPARDISE THE WELLFARE AND SAFEGUARDING OF THE CHILDREN AT THIS SCHOOL WHICH CAN BE VERY VUNERABLE.

The pupils use Wikipedia regularly. Some of those are on the autistic spectrum and they in particular will have great difficulties in distinguishing what are allegations, what is media speculation or the truth. Also consider that these children get very upset if even a small part of their routine changes. So to publish for instance that the school is under threat to be closed will have a huge impact on them as they regard it as their home and safe house. It causes a huge amount of emotional stress.

THINK AND BE RESPONSIBLE............IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO THIS COULD LEAD TO A TEENAGE SUICIDE.............

Whatever misjudgements the school might have made with regards to the current allegations it is up to the appropriate authorities to investigate in full. Untill they have completed them the contents and speculation about the investigations should not be part of a respectable encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Concerned Parent, Gerben. Gerben v (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the Controversy section to the bottom to minimise the impact. That said, you seem to be taking a very paternalistic approach to this. The students at the school know about the truth or not of these allegations, and to suggest otherwise is rather concerning.--Auric talk 11:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it very ironic that Gerben v should post the above pseudo-official pronouncement, when the several disruptive editing efforts and content disputes have been from that same editor following his/her desire to not publish the judgement of a Govenment-led inquiry, which by definition is hardly partisan as stated above! I left school some 40-years ago, but my memory is that pupils were more than aware of what was going on in a school (sometimes better than the teachers) and to assume otherwise is naive. Gerbens statement that to publish for instance that the school is under threat to be closed will have a huge impact on them is bizarre. Are you saying that the spokesman from the Department of Education is lying? Or that the BBC in quoting them are lying? They have made it very clear that the school IS under threat of closure unless OFSTED agree the new requirements are in place. You seem to be misunderstanding what a Judgement is, it is not for the appropriate authorities to investigate in full, that HAS been done. What is awaited is the result of the "final" OFSTED visit in May 2013. All of this is made very clear in the paragraph in the page that you are trying to excise. The ramifications of your thought-process of not including a factual, sourced account in an encyclopaedia, for fear that it may upset someone, is very disturbing. Who are you to decide who may or may not read something? Censorship is a very disturbing road to travel down. Kindly show, in specific detail, where the WP:NPOV has been breached, as you claim. Also, please state clearly if you are or were a parent of a child at this school and if you have any connection whatsoever with the school. I think that the POV is yours alone. I would also refer you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Manxwoman (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Stanbridge Earls School/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The request which was brought to the Third Opinion project raised a dispute over whether all mention of the sexual abuse allegations should be removed from the article "for fear that 'pupils on this school misinterprets these allegations and commits suicide'". This opinion is limited to that particular request. This is a well-documented set of events reported in reliable sources and is clearly not so insignificant that WP:UNDUE would cause it to be omitted from the article. In light of Wikipedia's policy that Wikipedia is not censored, the material is clearly appropriate for the article. I will not attempt to address whether or not Wikipedia coverage of these matters is good or bad, right or wrong for the reasons raised by Gerben v because reasons and considerations of those kinds have already been considered in the formation of Wikipedia's standing policy on the issue of censorship and need not be considered again in this particular instance with one possible exception: While in theory it is possible for the community to choose to create a local exception to policy in an instance such as this, such instances must be supported by consensus, are usually hugely controversial here and take weeks to months to resolve, and at the end almost always resolve against making an exception, even in cases which are far more compelling than this one. In my opinion it would be a huge exercise in futility to even attempt that process.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 19:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It probably goes without saying that I thank TransporterMan for his very speedy WP:Third Opinion comments and I entirely agree with his synopsis and conclusion. We will have to wait and see if your wise and considered council has satisfied Gerben v, but as the Stanbridge Earls School page has been quite rightly 'protected' until May 2013, any changes will have to wait until then, by which time I would imagine, the results of the OFSTED visit will be known and will also be in the public domain and so suitable for inclusion in the article. Manxwoman (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as a minor technical/procedural note; if there is a consensus here for making a change to the article before May 2013, then that change can still be made. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current version as it shows both sides of the argument, a section Manxwoman tried to remove earlier on in the discusion. I'm very happy with the protection which I was trying to request with the help of Materialscientist later today. Let me make things clear. I'm not siding with the school or any parties but as a parent I want to make sure people understand the impact some of the allegations have especially for those residing and studying on this school. Gerben v (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that the current version will change. BTW, it's only semi-protected. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Manxwoman,

This case is far more complex then meets the eye. It's is all about whether she was Gillick competent or not. The tribunal clearly judged she was not, based on rapports presented to them by the parents, but the Tribunal never met the girl in person. Those who did meet her, the school, the nurse, an independant doctor, Hampshire county council, the police, and even Ofsted in their may 2011 inspection (instigated specifically by the Allegations) judged it differently. I'm not saying that either is right or wrong but it shows that judging Gillick competentcy isn't that straight forward. Gerben v (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I would in all matters rather go with the official Judgement of a Ministry of Justice tribunal than the anecdotal, unsubstantiated evidence you claim to present. If however you can find published, verifiable sources to support your claim, use them. Until then I suggest that you take heed of the excellent advice that Tonywalton posted on your TalkPage (which I see has since been removed) so I reprint it here: "You have received several warnings about inappropriate editing and inappropriate reporting of what you claim to be vandalism which turns out not to be vandalism according to WP policies. It's good that you're now confining your edits to talkpages, but it may be time to read WP:STICK and stop flogging a dead horse. Leave it. Stop. Desist. If you genuinely have concerns about the school take it up with the school. If you genuinely have concerns about the welfare of pupils at the school take it up with the school, Social Services or (as a last resort) the police. Taking it up with Wikipedia is an absolute waste or your time, my time, everybody else's time and (if you genuinely think there is a problem) counterproductive because Wikipedia isn't there to solve problems. Wikipedia is a tertiary-level source; it reports on what has been reported on in reliable sources. It is not a setter of precedent, a maker of policy or a place to go to to get things changed. If you can verifiably quote sources for what you claim please do so, without personal attack or incivility. If not, please remember that WP does not accept original research or personal opinion. Find other articles to edit instead. Your editing is currently disruptive in that it disrupts the goal of creating an excellent encyclopædia, and needs to stop. Please take this as a level two warning." Manxwoman (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Manxwoman,

I think you are right. Actually you always seem to be right. I admire you as I rarely meet these people which are always right.

Gerben v (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Discuss removal of un-newsworthy paragraph

I removed the paragraph that ‎Demiurge1000 has now reverted, as I contend that it is completely unnecessary, un-newsworthy and entirely irrelevant to the section on the on-going controversy at this school. The fact that a tiny group of pupils parents (30 in all) have formed a quasi-support group has no baring on this paragraph, unless it is also mentioned that the parents of the other pupils (a huge majority) have NOT formed a support group. What possible interest is this information? Their 'mandate' is naive in the extreme:kept a dignified stance, resisting the temptation to rebut allegations via the media and to allow the Police, Ofsted and Hampshire County Council to do their work.. Isn't that rather obvious and I question the motive of Gerben v as to why he/she keeps insisting that it is included. The consensus above clearly shows that the basic facts should be retained until the outcome of the DofE and OFSTED final visit is known publicly. I suggest that it be deleted again, permanently, as irrelevant and not required information in a respected encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia. As Tonywalton states above: "Taking it up with Wikipedia is an absolute waste or your time, my time, everybody else's time and (if you genuinely think there is a problem) counterproductive because Wikipedia isn't there to solve problems." However if there is a consensus to include irrelevant information, please feel free. I really don't care for the subject in question one way or another. Just that I am highly dubious about the reason for its inclusion by a SPV editor. Manxwoman (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Awful article

This is an atrocious article. Reading it leaves one with the distinct and troubling impression that it has been written by a former pupil (or pupils) who has confused "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with "Facebook." There has been no attempt to locate references or secondary sources, and the token insertion of links to web pages which do not even mention the school, let alone verify the assertions in the article, are disingenuous at best. The article needs to be ruthlessly slashed and burned and rebuilt with the focus on WP:V: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Keri (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I should add: Looking back at the article history, I am shocked to see that this page has been in existence for nigh on FIVE years and in all that time no one has seen fit to locate even a smattering of suitable references. Keri (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on a good and incisive edit. It needed it desperately. I only hope you don't suffer the barrage of insults, attacks and reverts that I went through when I attempted to add current (sourced) info! Good luck. PS I have put back in one item about Ofsted investigating itself over the whole sorry saga. Manxwoman (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)