Jump to content

Talk:Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Two issues now at the Reliable sources noticeboard

[edit]

Two issues about the sourcing for assertions in this article have been referred to the Reliable sources noticeboard . They are in sections Potentially misleading use of independantschools.com ( Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire ) and Reliable sources for Specific Learning Difficulties provision (Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire). - Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better if every source was sent to RS. Then it will prevent the RS argument being raised spuriously. isfutile:P (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern. I propose to only submit what we consider to be the most controversial of issues. I do not want to spam RS/N. No doubt other editors with an interest in policing reliable sources will investigate this article if they see fit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Salimfadhley, and please note that the RSN deals with specific statements and the sources used to support those specific statements, not every single source used in the article. At least 5 editors have expressed concern about the sourcing for the SEN provision and its potential to mislead, which was the query that I raised at RSN today. This is not a "spurious" issue. I actually consider it quite serious. I have no intention of raising other issues. Although some of them detract from the article's credibility in my view, they are relatively minor. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the edit warring by IPs that ignores discussion at this talk page, I've semiprotected the article indefinitely — not because it needs permanent semiprotection, but because I'm not sure when semiprotection should end. Feel free to unprotect (or request unprotection) whenever you believe that it's not needed anymore; you don't have to notify me or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that protecting the article is against policy, yes? The blocking and protection policies clearly require blocking the individual editors instead of locking down the article. Why do you see it fit to ignore this policy? 134.241.58.240 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, quote please? In cases where multiple non-confirmed editors (or one person using multiple non-confirmed accounts or IP addresses) are causing problems at an article, semiprotection is appropriate. Per my statement above, you are free to request unprotection if you believe that the protection is no longer helpful here. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes, "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." This case is an isolated issue of IPs from the high school attempting to edit the article, not a large-scale edit war. I really don't know why I, an IP, has to explain basic blocking policy to you, a veteran administrator. It seriously calls into question your familiarity with the policies regarding page protection and editor blocking. I suggest you defer all future administrative actions until you have completed remedial education and training on adminship. 134.241.58.240 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making my point for me. "Isolated" this situation is not — we have several IPs messing with this article, and none of them are getting close to violating the three-revert rule, so the blocking policy does not permit me to block any of them. What's more, one of the IPs has been using this talk page, and there's nothing wrong with that, and the IPs originate from multiple ranges, so a rangeblock is impossible. Please request changes by using the {{editsemiprotected}} template, not by calling for an administrator's head. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the block, as an independent admin who works on these articles. I think the semiprotection a very good idea. I disagree it should be indefinite, and have changed it to 4 months. One danger with indefinite is that removing it will be accidentally omitted. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it should have been removed or modified whenever appropriate; thanks for making that decision. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the "ranking" based on independentschools.com

[edit]

"Woodleigh School is ranked 12th out of 1,010 independent coeducational schools in England by the Independent School Directory based on ratings from users of their website", referenced to this, which is based solely on these, with the explicit disclaimer that "independentschools.com does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of these reviews and opinions, and does not perform an independent investigation to verify their truth or accuracy."

We have at least four editors on this talk page expressing the view that this source and the assertion (in its various forms) is inappropriate "cherry-picked" content based solely on anonymous user-generated data, i.e. glowing "reviews" of the school written by anonymous "alumni", "parents", and "current pupils". (See the sections above concerns WP:PUFFERY and misleading use of source.) Interestingly, yet another cookie-cutter glowing "review" appeared last week, the day this issue was first raised. At least three further editors have removed the statement with edit summaries citing the same reason. See also this damning comment at the Reliable sources notice board. The statement was re-added with the edit summary "Where is consensus against?" and re-added again when reverted with "I think since this was taken to RSN editors should at least wait for consensus". I believe that there is a considerable consensus against using both the statement and its source in the article and no evidence to the contrary. Discuss. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consensus at RSN appears to be against retaining this source. (In the interests of transparency, I should add that I've just come from there after leaving a tick in the "against" column myself.) User:Despayre has been tentatively in favour of retaining it, with caveats (but suggests finding more rigorous sources), John, DGG, Cameron Scott, Voceditenore, Salimfadhley and myself have all protested its inclusion, and have pointed to the fact that we have a guideline on sourcing that specifically discourages the use of such sources. I'd call that pretty clear, policy-based consensus against keeping the reference. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also the comments by Dahliarose on this talk page who has stated that she also would prefer this statement to be deleted altogether for the same reasons [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
happy to abide by a genuine consensus. However, 1. it hasn't been up there for very long and 2 if the source and text is removed then so should the RS tag on the article. isfutile:P (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had added [dubious – discuss] after the statement to alert readers/editors to discussion on this specific issue here on the talk page. Can you please explain why you have just reverrted this as "Non constructive tagging"? Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two issues here. Despayre said that the website is a reliable source for referencing solely the fact that Woodleigh School is placed 12th in its rankings of user-generated content. The point here is that this is a content issue, in addition to a reliable source issue. Should the article include a cherry-picked "ranking" based entirely on extremely dubious user-generated (i.e. unreliable) content? My view is no and I believe that is the view of the majority of editors here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have requested access to The Sunday Times "Parent Power" school league table for 2011. This is arguably the UK's most notable and respected school league table. It has the benefit of being independently compiled and backed up by a major publisher of repute. If Woodleigh school is similarly ranked in this more respected league table then I think it's a good justification for keeping IndependantSchools.com. If not it's arguably cherry-picking to keep this reference. Can I urge you all to keep the matter open until I've obtained this offline source. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WS does not appear to be listed in that resource. isfutile:P (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Woodleigh was listed in the Sunday Times rankings (which Tony suggests it isn't), that wouldn't make the IS.com reference any more valid. The compliers take their data from completely different sources, and are wholly independant of one another. Seems a moot point, though, if Woodleigh doesn't even feature on the ST league table. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I doubt if Woodleigh School will appear at all on the Times school league tables, but its absence wouldn't tell us anything one way or another . The Times ranking for prep schools is based on the results for the government's Key Stage 2, level 5 tests. Independent schools are not required to use those tests, and many (possibly the majority) do not, preferring their own achievement tests. Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agreed: replacing or augmenting with another likely contested source wouldn't be positive - as I said before, if the consensus is genuine, by all means remove that section. However, I still think it could do with a little longer for consensus to emerge. In light of comments above, perhaps despayre could be asked to provide further. isfutile:P (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC) clarification. Happy to go along with whatever he suggests. isfutile:P (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that this sentence should be removed. It is misleading to quote one league table out of context. This survey is in any case based on a very small sample size, is reliant on user-submitted comments on a website, and is open to manipulation. I have a subscription to the Times/Sunday Times and have access to the Parent Power database on their website. In the April league tables published by Parent Power, Woodleigh School is not listed amongst the top 430 independent schools: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Parent_Power/. However, that is not surprising as these rankings are based on A level and GCSE performance, and you would not expect a school that has a significant proportion of special needs pupils to feature so highly. This is one reason why we rely on secondary sources for Wikipedia, as the secondary sources interpret the material for us, which is much preferable to Wikipedia editors cherry-picking the tables that put their school in the best light. If this sentence is removed then I think the reliable sources tag should also be removed. I don't think there's any problem with the reliability of any of the other sources, and the article is now well referenced. Dahliarose (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dahliarose, thank you for correcting my earlier proposal. I agree that whatever the Times parent power table may say it's not germane to this question. I think we have a strong consensus to remove the misleading and unreliable IndependantSchools.com source. Since you have already considered this source there is no point in waiting for me to review it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised I was looking at the wrong page in the league tables. I was looking at the secondary schools rather than the prep schools. The Sunday Times has a listing of the top 150 prep schools, but Woodleigh is not in the list. However, these tables are based on performance in SATs tests at Key Stage 2, and not all private schools take the SATS tests, so these league tables can be very misleading. Dahliarose (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other league table we might consider, preferably one based on pupil and parent satisfaction? I'm trying to avoid cherry-picking here. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Dahliarose, I don't think we should quote any league table rankings (basically primary sources), unless a school's ranking on a particular table was deemed sufficiently notable/newsworthy to be covered in depth by reliable secondary sources. And I certainly don't think we should be reporting junk rankings like those produced by independentschools.com. Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a red herring - the consideration of other sources has nothing to do with the actual discussion - let us concentrate on if the independantschools.com should be used - that is the only question that should be settled in this section. A discussion about the relative merits of other sources should be in it's own section not used here to muddy the conversation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron, you are right. Let's just get rid of it. Consensus is overwhelming. There is no point in further discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that consensus was ever required here. The guidance on reliable sources per WP:USERG is explicit, user generated material is not acceptable. It is even more obviously unacceptable when the website in question disavows its own content. Things like imdb ratings, scores from ratemyprofessors and the website currently under discussion are unacceptable for very good and obvious reasons. Personally, I'm amazed that someone at RSN thought it acceptable. —92.2.91.151 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern. In this case we had a number of objections from editors involved with this article. We have taken those objections into account, given additional consideration to this source and still find it unreliable. I'd say that the time for debate is over. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, it's not even clear to me what reason was given to keep this unreliable source beyond "because"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through the first few reviews of the school on the site, the tone and language of the reviews is very odd for people who profess to be young boys of around 13-15, there is one boy who says he has written two other reviews, and there is someone (presumably a teacher) who somehow knows the name of an anonymous reviewer and is encouraging other boys from the school to give positive reviews. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to be bold and remove the content derived from the unreliable source as the consensus here is overwhelmingly in favour of its removal. I've also taken the opportunity to anglicise the headings. Academics refers to people in British English not to the subjects taught at a school as in American English! Dahliarose (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This really had gone on far too long when the consensus to remove it was overwhelming as well as being thoroughly grounded in policy. And kudos for your re-structuring of the new Curriculum section. A big improvement! Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everybody involved. I think this approach to discussing sources is very productive. Would anybody be interested in discussing the suitability for inclusion of other sections of this article? I'm thinking of the EdStats (top-trumps game) anecdote. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 August 2012

[edit]

Please change the below text from: "Woodleigh School is a preparatory school for boys and girls aged 3 to 13, located in the village of Langton, North Yorkshire, England. As of 2012, it has 61 pupils, a mixture of day children and boarders.[2] The school is situated at Langton Hall, historically the seat of the Norcliffe family.[3] The Hall, now owned by their descendants, the Howard-Vyse family, and leased to Woodleigh School, is a Grade II listed building.[4]"

to replace with accurate information contained in the new text below: "Woodleigh School is a preparatory school for boys and girls aged 3 to 13, which was until recently located in the village of Langton, North Yorkshire, England. As of August 2012, it has ceased to operate from Langton Hall."

81.155.229.145 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also the text is not clear and looses information from the original text. Is the school closing all together or just at a specific location? Keith D (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot talk to the school's future plans as it has not updated its own website. What I can confirm is that Woodleigh School is unfortunately no longer operating a business or in occupation of Langton Hall and the current wikipedia text is therefore misleading should be immediately altered to reflect this fact. I am sure they would verify this status themselves should you choose to contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.229.145 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ObtundTalk 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing pending supply of reliable sources. There is a backlog here. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'parent company' Woodleigh School Langton Ltd is in liquidation. However, looking at Companies House records, a number of companies have 'owned' Woodleigh School since 1978. Unfortunately this doesn't shed any light on whether or not the 'school' has closed. It may simply have transferred into new ownership. A reliable third party source would be useful to clarify this. Surely if the school had closed there would be something in a local newspaper or on the school website? 213.246.99.12 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is mike now?

[edit]

Hope he is well. He made a massive impact on my life x 194.207.109.203 (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire&oldid=1209525243"