![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{ request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.
Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this is aimed at me, because of my surname. Heather Hanbury, the headmistress, is my wife, but I have no connection with the school other than hearing tales of derring-do from the chalkface at night, and occasionally attending a concert or theatre production. I am not in any way employed by, affiliated to, or remunerated by the school. My edits were not commissioned or requested by the school or anyone connected with it, least of all my wife. I have less involvement with the school than any current or former pupil, parent, governor, or member of staff. I have carefully read both WP:COI and WP:PSCOI and do not believe there is any COI. In fact, the latter quotes a COI exemption "Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest." so that even if I WAS employed by the school, which I emphatically am not, there would not necessarily be a COI. There would certainly be a COI if the article was about my wife, but it is not. Based on this, I will remove the COI tag after a week or so if there has been no objection, or Justlettersandnumbers could do so, if you agree. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but if your wife is Headmistress there is definitely a potential COI regardless of your efforts to give a neutral POV Lyndaship ( talk) 12:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that rhanbury is attempting to be neutral, however the COI template must remain as per WP:COINOTBIAS Lyndaship ( talk) 09:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the COI tag after a while when my lack of involvement is proven. I have agreed not to touch the article again, and very few words that I wrote remain in it. I deeply regret my involvement as, like a building project gone wrong, what started as a slightly ramshackle but functional cottage has now been replaced by a shed in the ruins of a much larger house. The article is significantly shorter than when I started, and (IMO) less informative and interesting. As stated elsewhere, I am happy to help any neutral editor who would like to build it back up again. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Drm310:, could you please explain your reason for re-applying the COI tag, when after much discussion above and below I am playing it absolutely by the book and making suggestions on the talk page and not touching the main article at all? The COI tag on the main article was removed by Kudpung, one of the co-ordinators of the Wikiproject Schools. Rhanbury ( talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This question is not currently relevant as almost all usage of this report has been removed. Kept only for historical record. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This high quality secondary source is a rich source of information and quotes which I have used in several places. I would welcome feedback on whether I have got the balance right in selection and length of quotes and material. There are whole sections I haven't yet used, including leadership and governance, welfare and health and safety, pastoral care, teaching. Are any of those worth including? Rhanbury ( talk) 17:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two sources I have used multiple times: The 2013 ISI report, and the book "Grace and Integrity". I would like to add page references, especially for the book, but without having to repeat the entire citation every time. Does anyone know how to do this? Rhanbury ( talk) 12:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I have removed this as I have addressed all the cn tags and added over a dozen third party citations. I believe this makes the article better referenced than more than half of the school articles on Wikipedia. Rhanbury ( talk) 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion should be, following the deletion of all the former teachers. I think the bar should be lower than WP:BIO which is whether someone deserves their own article. Is there any useful precedent or guidance? See discussion on User talk:DMacks. Rhanbury ( talk) 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I have copied the paragraph from DMacks' talk page here, so anyone who arrives later can see the whole discussion in one place: "Hi, you have deleted all the former teachers because they don't satisfy WP:BIO, but my understanding is that is the criteria for whether someone merits their own article on wikipedia, not whether they deserve a brief mention in the text of another article. I'm concerned that you are setting the bar too high. I'm not particularly attached to the list, which I didn't add, but it is not unlike similar lists on other school pages, and I'd like to agree more appropriate criteria for whether a mention is merited or not. The original section heading did not include "Notable" - you added that. For example, one of the former pupils removed by someone else, Pamela Schwerdt, does not have her own page in Wikipedia, but merited a full length obituary in the Telegraph. Should that be enough?" Rhanbury ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for the clear advice and useful links. The justification makes sense. I shall review the section on that basis, and re-title it "Notable Alumnae" as (a) there are no teachers in it now, (b) they are all women, so it isn't alumni, and (c) the word 'notable' whilst implied to experienced editors, may guide casual editors away from just adding people they know of. Rhanbury ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have added a short section on this, as suggested by WP:SCH/AG. I have used references to the school prospectus, despite it being a primary source, as where else do you get information like this? WP:Primary says that primary sources may "be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". I think this qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhanbury ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, you have deleted the entire section on head teachers, however WP:WPSCH/AG explicitly says "A list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful." Most other schools articles have such a list. If your issue is the lack of referencing, then surely the cn tag would be a more proportionate response? And you say that details are off topic, but surely their notable achievements at the school are very much on topic? I have reinstated the section and added additional citations. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I have created below a stripped down list with just the names, and almost all other information removed, per many other school articles. I have put the reference in the header as it is the source for all but one of the dates, and other citations in line. Could some kind editor please copy/paste into the article, changing the subheading to a heading, if this is now acceptable?
In chronological order, with dates in office. [1]
References
Meanwhile, I have added below a list in the form suggested by @ John from Idegon: so you can make your judgement based on the full set of information. The heading levels will need to be adjusted. Even for the older entries, my opinion is that some notes would add interest to the article, for example that the 1735 mistress was the daughter of the 1723 mistress, but I have resisted for now.
In chronological order, with date of appointment. [1]
References
This question is not currently relevant as almost all the history section has been removed. Kept only for historical record. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, you have removed these. What is your objection to them? Thanks. Rhanbury ( talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I mean this edit. The history section is now quite long and I aimed to make it more readable by dividing it into three subsections covering respectively the time in Cripplegate, time in Hackney, and time in Hampton. Could some kind person either reinstate them, or tell me what is wrong with them? Rhanbury ( talk) 09:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC) I have temporarily removed the request edit tag here as editor Spintendo subsequently deleted most of the history section, and what remains is too short to need subheadings. See discussion below, and on his/her user talk page. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, you have rejected my use of the school web site for this, and I dare not now remove the cn tag without your permission (I presume this would count as edit-warring?).
I can offer the The Good Schools guide senior and junior which quote slightly different figures. Would that be acceptable? Rhanbury or how about The GSA member listing or the ISI report from 2013 (although that is now 5 years out of date, the figures haven't changed much) Rhanbury ( talk) 14:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo, you have deleted most of the history section, which took me several days to research and write, on the grounds of lack of referencing on each statement of fact. As stated elsewhere on this talk page, almost all of the information comes from the book "Grace and Integrity" so I thought it would be more readable if just cited once per paragraph, rather than in every phrase, per WP:REPCITE. However, that was clearly a bad judgement call. You have allowed the reference in other places, so I guess you are happy with the quality of the source? As a conflicted editor I cannot reinsert anything to fix that, as I could have done if you had instead use the cn tag or put something on the talk page. If I were to rebuild the history section here or somewhere, using a page reference for every statement, per the suggestion from Johnbod above, would that satisfy you, and would you then reinstate it? I don't want to put in the hours of effort required only to discover that it wouldn't.
Also, you have removed the section on academic results sourced from best-schools.co.uk. Could you elaborate on the issue here? Is it the nature of the content or the quality of the source? If the latter, what sort of source would you accept for UK school league tables / what is the issue with this source?
Also, you have removed the section on international expansion. I presume the issue here is that you don't consider the GSA source good enough as it is a re-hashed press release from the school? All secondary sources frequently derive their information from primary sources, including press releases, which are probably the source for half of what appears in the Financial Times for example. I can find other sources that don't reproduce the press release, but will have learned about it from the school. Are there any types of source that would satisfy you here? The same is true of most of the facts about the school of course, that are sourced from the school and reproduced in the educational press somewhere.
Also, you have removed the links to the good schools guide entries for the school from the list of external links, but left the Tatler Schools Guide which has similar purposes and style. Why the distinction?
Also, you deleted the note explaining why 1710 is the correct date, also sourced from Grace and integrity the book. I wanted to stop people from keeping reverting the date to 1711 which is incorrectly referenced elsewhere. Would the same solution (page reference) apply here, or is the objection to the type of note? Rhanbury ( talk) 07:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Pragmatically, if I have to fix all of the above issues on the talk page, I will basically have re-created the entire article here, which seems unwieldy. Can one of you more experienced editors suggest another approach? Is there, for example, a way of creating a hidden article whose contents could be copied across wholesale once approved (like a staging server in the IT world)? Or would you agree to me re-adding content (not reverting the edits) once there is an agreed approach to the various issues? Rhanbury ( talk) 08:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
See also the discussion at user talk:Spintendo#Uncited-info_removal_on_Lady_Eleanor_Holles_School. Rhanbury ( talk) 04:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ John from Idegon: You have reverted three of my edits, only one of which you address in your comment, the other two are completely unrelated and were just clarifying the structure. What is your reason for those reversions? On the most recent entry, you had stated that you objected to the use of Grace and Integrity for anything laudatory or contentious, but surely the fact that the school gained its name from the endowment set up by Lady Eleanor Holles is neither of those things. If you and others agree that Grace and Integrity cannot be used as a source at all, then nor can any of the other historical sources, so for consistency all of the history using this source should be removed, which I will now do, pending some resolution of this issue. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
According to their website, TM publishes commissioned books for schools, businesses, etc. As such, the so called definitive work being touted as a source for most of the article has to be discounted as a source for anything laudatory or contentious. I have no problem using it to source a list of school heads (as long as no one produces another source that brings it into contention), but its use beyond that will need to be seriously evaluated. John from Idegon ( talk) 09:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
That sounds entirely sensible. Parts of the book definitely are laudatory, especially the beginning which is the only bit available online. However, I was deliberately trying to avoid anything laudatory or contentious in the Wikipedia article, and have not used that early section at all! There is certainly one sentence that might fail the first test (where I quote the London University inspection report that described the school as "Excellent") so we could certainly lose that, however I believe that the vast majority of the history section (as it was prior to the removal by Spintendo) was neither of those things. My use of the word 'definitive' was as per the definition at dictionary.com - i.e. "most reliable or complete" in that it is by far the best source we have on the history. I didn't mean to imply that it was beyond challenge. It was however researched at great length by a professional historian who went back to the primary sources such as the original will and in the process debunked a number of myths that have arisen over time about the school. Rhanbury ( talk) 14:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
All material using Grace and Integrity as a source removed, per guidance from John from Idegon, see note under history section above. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey everyone, this is an extremely notable school and we should be grateful that someone has given their time to improve the article whatever the sources and whatever their initial misunderstandings of COI were - we at Wikipedia are partly to blame by still refusing after all these years to be adequately informative to newly registered users. I have removed the COI tag since the issue has been more than adequately addressed in the thread(s) above.
If anyone wants to compare with other UK school articles, please see
HCGS (state school) and
Malvern College (independent) - both GAs.
Let's not end by putting people off contributing by giving them a hostile reception. Instead, let's warmly invite Mr Hanbury to take some photos of the school to illustrate the article and upload them to Commons as his own work.Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) (coordinator, WikiProject Schools)
I have created this page, populated with the longer version of the history, and some other sections, as they were prior to the major deletions by Spintendo on 5th July 2018 (disputed by myself, DMacks and others) so that all the material does not get lost, buried deep in the edit history. I hope that this can be used as the starting point for agreeing a new version that can replace the thin remnants that currently remain in the main article. Rhanbury ( talk) 03:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
kudpung quotes Malvern College and Hanley Castle High School as Good Articles, which I agree they are. The Malvern College article makes extensive use of primary sources such as the schools web site (multiple citations), press releases, and school magazines, all of which have been rejected in edits for this article on LEH. In addition to citing the school website, the HCHS article references some original historical documents, such as the parish registers, which have implicitly (although not admittedly explicitly in the discussion above) been discouraged here. So it seems that different standards are being applied by different editors, which is hardly surprising, and certainly points up the need for clearer guidelines, per the comments from ClemRutter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#talk:Lady_Eleanor_Holles_School. If we can agree the judicious use of primary sources, or non-independent secondary sources, for school history, we can make a better fist of the section here. In reality, any newspaper reports, which are the other type of source used for articles, will have obtained history information from a primary source and are highly unlikely to have done any independent verification so insisting on those as the sole source just results in less information, not more independent or more accurate information. Rhanbury ( talk) 04:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Accuracy of school composition It seems that the school numbers are conflated with those of its Chinese satellite school: https://www.leh-foshan.cn/home - without the Foshan pupils the majority are not of South-East Asian origin, but a typical West London mixture of ethnicities, including South Asian and East Asian but also with a majority of ethnically European. Should this be adjusted? According to the most recent ISA Inspection there are 981 pupils on roll, of which 192 are Junior School, 608 are Senior School, with 181 in the Sixth Form. ( [1] ) I haven't edited the page beyond a minor typo because I am not confident with the techniques (and am a former member of the teaching staff, 1982-1994) but I think it would be good if somebody who knows what they are doing were to correct this. 86.140.33.68 ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Gill Othen 86.140.33.68 ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{ request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.
Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this is aimed at me, because of my surname. Heather Hanbury, the headmistress, is my wife, but I have no connection with the school other than hearing tales of derring-do from the chalkface at night, and occasionally attending a concert or theatre production. I am not in any way employed by, affiliated to, or remunerated by the school. My edits were not commissioned or requested by the school or anyone connected with it, least of all my wife. I have less involvement with the school than any current or former pupil, parent, governor, or member of staff. I have carefully read both WP:COI and WP:PSCOI and do not believe there is any COI. In fact, the latter quotes a COI exemption "Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest." so that even if I WAS employed by the school, which I emphatically am not, there would not necessarily be a COI. There would certainly be a COI if the article was about my wife, but it is not. Based on this, I will remove the COI tag after a week or so if there has been no objection, or Justlettersandnumbers could do so, if you agree. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but if your wife is Headmistress there is definitely a potential COI regardless of your efforts to give a neutral POV Lyndaship ( talk) 12:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that rhanbury is attempting to be neutral, however the COI template must remain as per WP:COINOTBIAS Lyndaship ( talk) 09:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the COI tag after a while when my lack of involvement is proven. I have agreed not to touch the article again, and very few words that I wrote remain in it. I deeply regret my involvement as, like a building project gone wrong, what started as a slightly ramshackle but functional cottage has now been replaced by a shed in the ruins of a much larger house. The article is significantly shorter than when I started, and (IMO) less informative and interesting. As stated elsewhere, I am happy to help any neutral editor who would like to build it back up again. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Drm310:, could you please explain your reason for re-applying the COI tag, when after much discussion above and below I am playing it absolutely by the book and making suggestions on the talk page and not touching the main article at all? The COI tag on the main article was removed by Kudpung, one of the co-ordinators of the Wikiproject Schools. Rhanbury ( talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This question is not currently relevant as almost all usage of this report has been removed. Kept only for historical record. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This high quality secondary source is a rich source of information and quotes which I have used in several places. I would welcome feedback on whether I have got the balance right in selection and length of quotes and material. There are whole sections I haven't yet used, including leadership and governance, welfare and health and safety, pastoral care, teaching. Are any of those worth including? Rhanbury ( talk) 17:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two sources I have used multiple times: The 2013 ISI report, and the book "Grace and Integrity". I would like to add page references, especially for the book, but without having to repeat the entire citation every time. Does anyone know how to do this? Rhanbury ( talk) 12:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I have removed this as I have addressed all the cn tags and added over a dozen third party citations. I believe this makes the article better referenced than more than half of the school articles on Wikipedia. Rhanbury ( talk) 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion should be, following the deletion of all the former teachers. I think the bar should be lower than WP:BIO which is whether someone deserves their own article. Is there any useful precedent or guidance? See discussion on User talk:DMacks. Rhanbury ( talk) 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I have copied the paragraph from DMacks' talk page here, so anyone who arrives later can see the whole discussion in one place: "Hi, you have deleted all the former teachers because they don't satisfy WP:BIO, but my understanding is that is the criteria for whether someone merits their own article on wikipedia, not whether they deserve a brief mention in the text of another article. I'm concerned that you are setting the bar too high. I'm not particularly attached to the list, which I didn't add, but it is not unlike similar lists on other school pages, and I'd like to agree more appropriate criteria for whether a mention is merited or not. The original section heading did not include "Notable" - you added that. For example, one of the former pupils removed by someone else, Pamela Schwerdt, does not have her own page in Wikipedia, but merited a full length obituary in the Telegraph. Should that be enough?" Rhanbury ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for the clear advice and useful links. The justification makes sense. I shall review the section on that basis, and re-title it "Notable Alumnae" as (a) there are no teachers in it now, (b) they are all women, so it isn't alumni, and (c) the word 'notable' whilst implied to experienced editors, may guide casual editors away from just adding people they know of. Rhanbury ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have added a short section on this, as suggested by WP:SCH/AG. I have used references to the school prospectus, despite it being a primary source, as where else do you get information like this? WP:Primary says that primary sources may "be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". I think this qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhanbury ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, you have deleted the entire section on head teachers, however WP:WPSCH/AG explicitly says "A list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful." Most other schools articles have such a list. If your issue is the lack of referencing, then surely the cn tag would be a more proportionate response? And you say that details are off topic, but surely their notable achievements at the school are very much on topic? I have reinstated the section and added additional citations. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I have created below a stripped down list with just the names, and almost all other information removed, per many other school articles. I have put the reference in the header as it is the source for all but one of the dates, and other citations in line. Could some kind editor please copy/paste into the article, changing the subheading to a heading, if this is now acceptable?
In chronological order, with dates in office. [1]
References
Meanwhile, I have added below a list in the form suggested by @ John from Idegon: so you can make your judgement based on the full set of information. The heading levels will need to be adjusted. Even for the older entries, my opinion is that some notes would add interest to the article, for example that the 1735 mistress was the daughter of the 1723 mistress, but I have resisted for now.
In chronological order, with date of appointment. [1]
References
This question is not currently relevant as almost all the history section has been removed. Kept only for historical record. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, you have removed these. What is your objection to them? Thanks. Rhanbury ( talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I mean this edit. The history section is now quite long and I aimed to make it more readable by dividing it into three subsections covering respectively the time in Cripplegate, time in Hackney, and time in Hampton. Could some kind person either reinstate them, or tell me what is wrong with them? Rhanbury ( talk) 09:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC) I have temporarily removed the request edit tag here as editor Spintendo subsequently deleted most of the history section, and what remains is too short to need subheadings. See discussion below, and on his/her user talk page. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, you have rejected my use of the school web site for this, and I dare not now remove the cn tag without your permission (I presume this would count as edit-warring?).
I can offer the The Good Schools guide senior and junior which quote slightly different figures. Would that be acceptable? Rhanbury or how about The GSA member listing or the ISI report from 2013 (although that is now 5 years out of date, the figures haven't changed much) Rhanbury ( talk) 14:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo, you have deleted most of the history section, which took me several days to research and write, on the grounds of lack of referencing on each statement of fact. As stated elsewhere on this talk page, almost all of the information comes from the book "Grace and Integrity" so I thought it would be more readable if just cited once per paragraph, rather than in every phrase, per WP:REPCITE. However, that was clearly a bad judgement call. You have allowed the reference in other places, so I guess you are happy with the quality of the source? As a conflicted editor I cannot reinsert anything to fix that, as I could have done if you had instead use the cn tag or put something on the talk page. If I were to rebuild the history section here or somewhere, using a page reference for every statement, per the suggestion from Johnbod above, would that satisfy you, and would you then reinstate it? I don't want to put in the hours of effort required only to discover that it wouldn't.
Also, you have removed the section on academic results sourced from best-schools.co.uk. Could you elaborate on the issue here? Is it the nature of the content or the quality of the source? If the latter, what sort of source would you accept for UK school league tables / what is the issue with this source?
Also, you have removed the section on international expansion. I presume the issue here is that you don't consider the GSA source good enough as it is a re-hashed press release from the school? All secondary sources frequently derive their information from primary sources, including press releases, which are probably the source for half of what appears in the Financial Times for example. I can find other sources that don't reproduce the press release, but will have learned about it from the school. Are there any types of source that would satisfy you here? The same is true of most of the facts about the school of course, that are sourced from the school and reproduced in the educational press somewhere.
Also, you have removed the links to the good schools guide entries for the school from the list of external links, but left the Tatler Schools Guide which has similar purposes and style. Why the distinction?
Also, you deleted the note explaining why 1710 is the correct date, also sourced from Grace and integrity the book. I wanted to stop people from keeping reverting the date to 1711 which is incorrectly referenced elsewhere. Would the same solution (page reference) apply here, or is the objection to the type of note? Rhanbury ( talk) 07:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Pragmatically, if I have to fix all of the above issues on the talk page, I will basically have re-created the entire article here, which seems unwieldy. Can one of you more experienced editors suggest another approach? Is there, for example, a way of creating a hidden article whose contents could be copied across wholesale once approved (like a staging server in the IT world)? Or would you agree to me re-adding content (not reverting the edits) once there is an agreed approach to the various issues? Rhanbury ( talk) 08:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
See also the discussion at user talk:Spintendo#Uncited-info_removal_on_Lady_Eleanor_Holles_School. Rhanbury ( talk) 04:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ John from Idegon: You have reverted three of my edits, only one of which you address in your comment, the other two are completely unrelated and were just clarifying the structure. What is your reason for those reversions? On the most recent entry, you had stated that you objected to the use of Grace and Integrity for anything laudatory or contentious, but surely the fact that the school gained its name from the endowment set up by Lady Eleanor Holles is neither of those things. If you and others agree that Grace and Integrity cannot be used as a source at all, then nor can any of the other historical sources, so for consistency all of the history using this source should be removed, which I will now do, pending some resolution of this issue. Rhanbury ( talk) 07:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
According to their website, TM publishes commissioned books for schools, businesses, etc. As such, the so called definitive work being touted as a source for most of the article has to be discounted as a source for anything laudatory or contentious. I have no problem using it to source a list of school heads (as long as no one produces another source that brings it into contention), but its use beyond that will need to be seriously evaluated. John from Idegon ( talk) 09:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
That sounds entirely sensible. Parts of the book definitely are laudatory, especially the beginning which is the only bit available online. However, I was deliberately trying to avoid anything laudatory or contentious in the Wikipedia article, and have not used that early section at all! There is certainly one sentence that might fail the first test (where I quote the London University inspection report that described the school as "Excellent") so we could certainly lose that, however I believe that the vast majority of the history section (as it was prior to the removal by Spintendo) was neither of those things. My use of the word 'definitive' was as per the definition at dictionary.com - i.e. "most reliable or complete" in that it is by far the best source we have on the history. I didn't mean to imply that it was beyond challenge. It was however researched at great length by a professional historian who went back to the primary sources such as the original will and in the process debunked a number of myths that have arisen over time about the school. Rhanbury ( talk) 14:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
All material using Grace and Integrity as a source removed, per guidance from John from Idegon, see note under history section above. Rhanbury ( talk) 08:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey everyone, this is an extremely notable school and we should be grateful that someone has given their time to improve the article whatever the sources and whatever their initial misunderstandings of COI were - we at Wikipedia are partly to blame by still refusing after all these years to be adequately informative to newly registered users. I have removed the COI tag since the issue has been more than adequately addressed in the thread(s) above.
If anyone wants to compare with other UK school articles, please see
HCGS (state school) and
Malvern College (independent) - both GAs.
Let's not end by putting people off contributing by giving them a hostile reception. Instead, let's warmly invite Mr Hanbury to take some photos of the school to illustrate the article and upload them to Commons as his own work.Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) (coordinator, WikiProject Schools)
I have created this page, populated with the longer version of the history, and some other sections, as they were prior to the major deletions by Spintendo on 5th July 2018 (disputed by myself, DMacks and others) so that all the material does not get lost, buried deep in the edit history. I hope that this can be used as the starting point for agreeing a new version that can replace the thin remnants that currently remain in the main article. Rhanbury ( talk) 03:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
kudpung quotes Malvern College and Hanley Castle High School as Good Articles, which I agree they are. The Malvern College article makes extensive use of primary sources such as the schools web site (multiple citations), press releases, and school magazines, all of which have been rejected in edits for this article on LEH. In addition to citing the school website, the HCHS article references some original historical documents, such as the parish registers, which have implicitly (although not admittedly explicitly in the discussion above) been discouraged here. So it seems that different standards are being applied by different editors, which is hardly surprising, and certainly points up the need for clearer guidelines, per the comments from ClemRutter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#talk:Lady_Eleanor_Holles_School. If we can agree the judicious use of primary sources, or non-independent secondary sources, for school history, we can make a better fist of the section here. In reality, any newspaper reports, which are the other type of source used for articles, will have obtained history information from a primary source and are highly unlikely to have done any independent verification so insisting on those as the sole source just results in less information, not more independent or more accurate information. Rhanbury ( talk) 04:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Accuracy of school composition It seems that the school numbers are conflated with those of its Chinese satellite school: https://www.leh-foshan.cn/home - without the Foshan pupils the majority are not of South-East Asian origin, but a typical West London mixture of ethnicities, including South Asian and East Asian but also with a majority of ethnically European. Should this be adjusted? According to the most recent ISA Inspection there are 981 pupils on roll, of which 192 are Junior School, 608 are Senior School, with 181 in the Sixth Form. ( [1] ) I haven't edited the page beyond a minor typo because I am not confident with the techniques (and am a former member of the teaching staff, 1982-1994) but I think it would be good if somebody who knows what they are doing were to correct this. 86.140.33.68 ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Gill Othen 86.140.33.68 ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)