![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think this might be a hoax, Google reveals nothing as far as the first few results go and nothing about it closing is on its official page. -- WikiSlasher 10:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This information is 100 percent genuine, as you can now see from the sources I have added. If you consider that it is insufficiently referenced, I would be glad to furnish you with more references, however please do not delete this as that amounts to vandalism and censorship. It is one of the main benefits of Wikipedia that people can openly and freely make things public as long as they are verifiably true, and it is greatly offensive to the victims of these crimes that you should choose to aide and abet them by helping to keep this information out of the public domain. a little respect is called for here. As I say, if you require further evidence, or a change in tone, please say as much but do not needlessly vandalise my contribution.
As you can clearly see, I have provided a great deal of evidence here. If you know a way to attach the articles as links instead, please tell me how to do that. However please do not remove the information here just like that, as that would amount to vandalism. this information is in the public interest so please can we compromise here, any change of tone or more references being added is not problem to me but please do not be so disrespetful to just delete it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomPrescott ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
To Guinnog and TomPrescott: You might want to consider RfC, since with only two people this is not gonna go anywhere. I'd help but I have other things in life :) -- WikiSlasher 11:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to do a major rewrite of the whole article so please do not interfere now, once I finished, I will replace the original. Feel free to contribute right here or take a look at the scrap page in my sandbox. Later, I'm going to add some votes here to ask you whether or not to apply facts (or hoaxes?) to this text to keep it from stubbing... Lazer erazer 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Usage about how to get these icons ;)
"Due to serious and prolonged fraudulent financial mismanagment, the school has now ... been forced to close recently."
"...the school has now to the relief of many concerned, been forced to close recently."
"This is a time for much celebration, as although nothing can take away the damage inflicted on many of their victims, whose lives have been permanantly affected by their crimes, the Mulvey family are, hopefully, at last now prevented from harming any more young children, and that is something we can all be grateful for."
"The school was created with the purpose of exploiting already vulnerable children in order to profit financially."
"Children were appaulingly mistreated, ..."
Helen Mulvey bit my nose and Mrs. slapped my face
"every HMI report highlighted concerns about student welfare"
"The mistreatment taking place consisted of numerous instances of psychological and physical abuse, leaving a string of dissaffected former pupils, the school having one of the highest turnover rates of any schools in the country, as pupils realised the nature of their enviroment. some examples of abuse include, but are in no way limited to, physical assault by staff members, sexual student teacher relations, extreme psychological abuse over long periods of time, arbitrary summary punishments, and the covering up and even encouragment of numerous instances of psychological, physical and sexual abuse between pupils."
Comment Regardless of the outcome of this "vote", any information added to this article will have to satisfy both WP:V and WP:BLP. The correct spelling of the Head's name is Robert Mulvey by the way. All he best, -- Guinnog 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
lazerserver.la.ohost.de/nmp.php?id=214d7dcc553cde6a7ece2c5866bcec10 is on the spam blacklist, are you really sure it can count as a reliable source? -- WikiSlasher 10:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Well I can't find it on the list but nonetheless I got the spamblock page when I tried to fix the link -- WikiSlasher 10:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In own research I found a source for the fvcademuir (Förderverein der Cademuir International School), but on archive.org only... are sources that are no longer existing on net allowed sources? (will these archive links eventually be deleted in future?) -- Lazer erazer 16:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have found some basic school data collected from roughly 15 publications concerning School Census ;-) source - how can we include this into the main article? -- Lazer erazer 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Local Authority Dumfries & Galloway Seed Code(?) 5680239 School Name Cademuir International School School Funding Type Independent Address 1 Crawfordton House Address 2 Moniaive Post code 1 DG3 Post Code 2 4HG Phone 01848 200212 Fax 01848 200336 E-mail cademuir1@aol.com Web address www.cademuir.com School type Pre school, Primary & Secondary Secondary Pupil rolls: Sep 2005 Sep 2004 Sep 2003 Sep 2002 Total 34 43 55 50 S1 5 S3 9 10 9 S4 6 11 11 S5 15 9 14 18 S6 5 12 14 7 Secondary Teacher numbers (FTE) Sep 2005 13.0 Sep 2004 14.3 Sep 2003 14.8 Sep 2002 Location Remote Rural Denomination Non-denominational
I thought about crawling once more through Google™ to find some more sources for this article. Successfully! There's not really much to prove with the following sources, but morely additional information that can be included to the main article... Have fun -- Lazer erazer 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (For convenience I included a summary for each link)
Interviewing a female student about the concept of Cademuir (that's what we're missing!)
There are far more HMIE-reports during the past years. The reverted editor probably did only see one at that time. It would be intersting to mention the "improvements in all sectors over the past", yet we cited only one so far. They're worth being included
This reference is containing current and informative community reports from involved parents and students in Cademuir (and other schools). The NPOV may be disputed in some cases, but some people even signed with their real names.
Note: Do not collect any mentioned emails/names/addresses/phones/mobiles for any spam/commercial-related purposes!
Signed as Opfer (Victim) a former friend of mine reported some interesting facts about the school. Also other students and parents joined the "debate".
I was busy previously but I feel that I should have responded to this point last year, and now have time to do so.
The critiscisms here of my tone are quite valid, my original submissions were highly emotive and I appologise for that. However you repeatedly claim that the references are unverifiable. However I feel that articles in two national newspapers constitute "Verifiability". You say:
"My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site."
Wikipedia says:
""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.""
It does not say that only online sources are valid. There are other sources for these articles, you know. In fact, "...Published by a reliable source...." Tends to imply print-press rather than electronic, according to the common definition of the verb, To Publish. Are you seriously suggesting that mainstream national newspapers are not a valid source in any circumstances unless a FREE on-line source is also available? THis is NOT mentioned in The definition of Verifiability provided by Wikipedia (which you yourself claim is the basis for your decision) so I find this decision strange, to say the least. The internet has been around for 15-20 years or so in it's popular form, newspapers for around 200 years. I am sure that there are many references in other articles which do not also existing on-line. I think that the general public consider a citation of a national newspaper to be 'Verifiable', this being all that existed until the present generation.
In fact, in the Wikipedia policy about living people you have mentioned above, it states: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
Once again, I apologise for the tone of my previous article. But it is a fact that the school was being investigated by the police for allegations of abuse, this is actually more than a critiscism so surely warrants inclusion? If "The Sunday Mail" and "The Mail on Sunday" feel that it deserves two full articles then surely I have a right to ask that this information be included.
So please, someone tell me how I can get these allegations included, as I feel not to do so is falling way short of Wikipedia's goal of fair and balanced information.
Am I allowed to quote these articles?
There must be a way to include this. These are not obscure references.
Tom Prescott 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear John ( talk), first of all I want to participate with you and TomPrescott to find a solution on how to fix this article. You've shown confidence in certain sections of the article that you thought were inverifiable, and by copy editing and undoing things done by TomPrescott some parts have been accidentally removed that were written far earlier by former contributors. I did not yet find out whether it was done accidentally or on purpose, as there have been many changes in each of these edits. To prevent further damage being done to the article, I would like to know what has made these changes to happen.
OT: Why are articles such as Copenhagen International School not marked as a stub?
Thank you very much for taking the time answering my questions. Best regards -- Lazer erazer 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Some editor who has enough time may add new information about the restoration of Crawfordton House (the building that housed the school) from here: https://www.facebook.com/CrawfordtonHouseRestoration -- Lazer erazer ( talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think this might be a hoax, Google reveals nothing as far as the first few results go and nothing about it closing is on its official page. -- WikiSlasher 10:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This information is 100 percent genuine, as you can now see from the sources I have added. If you consider that it is insufficiently referenced, I would be glad to furnish you with more references, however please do not delete this as that amounts to vandalism and censorship. It is one of the main benefits of Wikipedia that people can openly and freely make things public as long as they are verifiably true, and it is greatly offensive to the victims of these crimes that you should choose to aide and abet them by helping to keep this information out of the public domain. a little respect is called for here. As I say, if you require further evidence, or a change in tone, please say as much but do not needlessly vandalise my contribution.
As you can clearly see, I have provided a great deal of evidence here. If you know a way to attach the articles as links instead, please tell me how to do that. However please do not remove the information here just like that, as that would amount to vandalism. this information is in the public interest so please can we compromise here, any change of tone or more references being added is not problem to me but please do not be so disrespetful to just delete it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomPrescott ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
To Guinnog and TomPrescott: You might want to consider RfC, since with only two people this is not gonna go anywhere. I'd help but I have other things in life :) -- WikiSlasher 11:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to do a major rewrite of the whole article so please do not interfere now, once I finished, I will replace the original. Feel free to contribute right here or take a look at the scrap page in my sandbox. Later, I'm going to add some votes here to ask you whether or not to apply facts (or hoaxes?) to this text to keep it from stubbing... Lazer erazer 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Usage about how to get these icons ;)
"Due to serious and prolonged fraudulent financial mismanagment, the school has now ... been forced to close recently."
"...the school has now to the relief of many concerned, been forced to close recently."
"This is a time for much celebration, as although nothing can take away the damage inflicted on many of their victims, whose lives have been permanantly affected by their crimes, the Mulvey family are, hopefully, at last now prevented from harming any more young children, and that is something we can all be grateful for."
"The school was created with the purpose of exploiting already vulnerable children in order to profit financially."
"Children were appaulingly mistreated, ..."
Helen Mulvey bit my nose and Mrs. slapped my face
"every HMI report highlighted concerns about student welfare"
"The mistreatment taking place consisted of numerous instances of psychological and physical abuse, leaving a string of dissaffected former pupils, the school having one of the highest turnover rates of any schools in the country, as pupils realised the nature of their enviroment. some examples of abuse include, but are in no way limited to, physical assault by staff members, sexual student teacher relations, extreme psychological abuse over long periods of time, arbitrary summary punishments, and the covering up and even encouragment of numerous instances of psychological, physical and sexual abuse between pupils."
Comment Regardless of the outcome of this "vote", any information added to this article will have to satisfy both WP:V and WP:BLP. The correct spelling of the Head's name is Robert Mulvey by the way. All he best, -- Guinnog 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
lazerserver.la.ohost.de/nmp.php?id=214d7dcc553cde6a7ece2c5866bcec10 is on the spam blacklist, are you really sure it can count as a reliable source? -- WikiSlasher 10:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Well I can't find it on the list but nonetheless I got the spamblock page when I tried to fix the link -- WikiSlasher 10:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In own research I found a source for the fvcademuir (Förderverein der Cademuir International School), but on archive.org only... are sources that are no longer existing on net allowed sources? (will these archive links eventually be deleted in future?) -- Lazer erazer 16:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have found some basic school data collected from roughly 15 publications concerning School Census ;-) source - how can we include this into the main article? -- Lazer erazer 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Local Authority Dumfries & Galloway Seed Code(?) 5680239 School Name Cademuir International School School Funding Type Independent Address 1 Crawfordton House Address 2 Moniaive Post code 1 DG3 Post Code 2 4HG Phone 01848 200212 Fax 01848 200336 E-mail cademuir1@aol.com Web address www.cademuir.com School type Pre school, Primary & Secondary Secondary Pupil rolls: Sep 2005 Sep 2004 Sep 2003 Sep 2002 Total 34 43 55 50 S1 5 S3 9 10 9 S4 6 11 11 S5 15 9 14 18 S6 5 12 14 7 Secondary Teacher numbers (FTE) Sep 2005 13.0 Sep 2004 14.3 Sep 2003 14.8 Sep 2002 Location Remote Rural Denomination Non-denominational
I thought about crawling once more through Google™ to find some more sources for this article. Successfully! There's not really much to prove with the following sources, but morely additional information that can be included to the main article... Have fun -- Lazer erazer 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (For convenience I included a summary for each link)
Interviewing a female student about the concept of Cademuir (that's what we're missing!)
There are far more HMIE-reports during the past years. The reverted editor probably did only see one at that time. It would be intersting to mention the "improvements in all sectors over the past", yet we cited only one so far. They're worth being included
This reference is containing current and informative community reports from involved parents and students in Cademuir (and other schools). The NPOV may be disputed in some cases, but some people even signed with their real names.
Note: Do not collect any mentioned emails/names/addresses/phones/mobiles for any spam/commercial-related purposes!
Signed as Opfer (Victim) a former friend of mine reported some interesting facts about the school. Also other students and parents joined the "debate".
I was busy previously but I feel that I should have responded to this point last year, and now have time to do so.
The critiscisms here of my tone are quite valid, my original submissions were highly emotive and I appologise for that. However you repeatedly claim that the references are unverifiable. However I feel that articles in two national newspapers constitute "Verifiability". You say:
"My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site."
Wikipedia says:
""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.""
It does not say that only online sources are valid. There are other sources for these articles, you know. In fact, "...Published by a reliable source...." Tends to imply print-press rather than electronic, according to the common definition of the verb, To Publish. Are you seriously suggesting that mainstream national newspapers are not a valid source in any circumstances unless a FREE on-line source is also available? THis is NOT mentioned in The definition of Verifiability provided by Wikipedia (which you yourself claim is the basis for your decision) so I find this decision strange, to say the least. The internet has been around for 15-20 years or so in it's popular form, newspapers for around 200 years. I am sure that there are many references in other articles which do not also existing on-line. I think that the general public consider a citation of a national newspaper to be 'Verifiable', this being all that existed until the present generation.
In fact, in the Wikipedia policy about living people you have mentioned above, it states: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
Once again, I apologise for the tone of my previous article. But it is a fact that the school was being investigated by the police for allegations of abuse, this is actually more than a critiscism so surely warrants inclusion? If "The Sunday Mail" and "The Mail on Sunday" feel that it deserves two full articles then surely I have a right to ask that this information be included.
So please, someone tell me how I can get these allegations included, as I feel not to do so is falling way short of Wikipedia's goal of fair and balanced information.
Am I allowed to quote these articles?
There must be a way to include this. These are not obscure references.
Tom Prescott 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear John ( talk), first of all I want to participate with you and TomPrescott to find a solution on how to fix this article. You've shown confidence in certain sections of the article that you thought were inverifiable, and by copy editing and undoing things done by TomPrescott some parts have been accidentally removed that were written far earlier by former contributors. I did not yet find out whether it was done accidentally or on purpose, as there have been many changes in each of these edits. To prevent further damage being done to the article, I would like to know what has made these changes to happen.
OT: Why are articles such as Copenhagen International School not marked as a stub?
Thank you very much for taking the time answering my questions. Best regards -- Lazer erazer 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Some editor who has enough time may add new information about the restoration of Crawfordton House (the building that housed the school) from here: https://www.facebook.com/CrawfordtonHouseRestoration -- Lazer erazer ( talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)