![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
more refs pics welcome Victuallers 09:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) That stockbroker person was american, and his own article implies he was braught up in america.
You are correct. He did not attend JFS Breakfast100 10:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldnt the Famous Past Pupils be put into some type of order? Also shouldnt they have their dates while at he school listed? Breakfast100 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been loads of vandalism recently Breakfast100 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help sort through the material? It looks like a lot of the edits have been vandalism edits, but it's hard for me to figure out. Enigma msg! 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a former pupil (1968 - 76) I'm not at all confident in the accuracy of the sentence "The School has always had a reputation for firm discipline." Prior to the appointment of Mgr McLean in the late 1950s, the School was said to have had quite a poor reputation locally for behaviour: this information from the mother of a pupil during the change-over of headship. Does anybody please have a link for the Croydon Guardian article, so I can check the actual text? thanks. Rpw934 ( talk) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I was at JFS from '74 to '81 and I wouldn't say it was a very strict school for discipline. There was a Mr Tracey who chain smoked and whacked you with a wooden spoon if you got reported to him and I think he caned for serious matters. I think the prep school was worse in a way, I remember some boys being slippered quite badly just because their homework was deemed not good enough. What I hated about the school was its insistence you played rugby and never let you play football during Games. I think they had a snob preference for rugby. The swines. Sayerslle ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed some people who are not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.241.128 ( talk) 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I also removed some bullshit defamation that has no real rteference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.241.128 ( talk) 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please comment, best with citing sources. --Say Headcheese!-- hexa Chord 2 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought it would be good to use this period of protection to gather references here to help editors achieve a consensus version.
For the admissions policy criticisms, an online version of the Croydon Guardian article is at [5] under a different title from the print version currently used, but it does appear to contain all the relevant quotes. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The actual OSA decisions are available from [6] - unfortunately they are hosted as .doc files, and it appears to be impossible to link directly to them. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ofsted reports are available here [7]. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, the section that keeps getting deleted is the newspaper report about the bullying, not the admissions policy, and the reference for that doesn't link you to the article so you can read it for yourself. Personally I think it's fairly insane to believe it has been invented, but it isn't a satisfactory reference as it stands I suppose. Also some of the former pupils get repeatedly deleted, in the same vandalising action that blanks the criticism of the bullying atmosphere, by some IP at Cuny Education in Brooklyn. I think that IP address should be blocked unless whoever is editing explains their problem. Sayerslle ( talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
But the section on bullying is very short really, so the 'weight' is hardly excessive; the first hand testimony of ex-pupils can't be obliterated by Ofsted anyway. Put both in then, the first hand accounts of some ex-pupils and the Ofsted report findings . Anyone who just obliterates the paragraph is a vandal. 92.10.167.35 ( talk) 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Parents are very pleased with the school and pupils are proud to attend. They overwhelmingly agree that the school and teaching are good. Concerns pupils express are about bullying and behaviour, and the care and support they receive. Inspectors found no evidence of bullying or of much unsatisfactory behaviour. Care and support are good." (Ofsted 2004, p8)
But that paragraph still bothers me . Children express concern over bullying, and the care and support they receive....Inspectors find no evidence of bullying, and say the care they receive is good. That seems to me like, the pupils say there are problems and Ofsted just lay out an 'official line', 'Pupils are proud to attend.' This is the Ofsted that said Haringey Councils childrens services were good until Baby P made them check again. I'm not comparing the situations in any way Im just saying Ofsted are hardly perfect arbiters of anything and their inspectors deserve to be given less weight than people who day in day out were there. Sayerslle ( talk) 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Another part of the edit war, though I would normally expect this to be an incidental casualty of the reversion approach, is the list of notable alumni. There are three entries which are being added and removed, and so should be referenced or removed:
Of course the others should also be referenced, but as these three form part of the edit war it is important to ensure they follow policy. I have to say Fr Tim Finigan does not at first glance appear to be a notable alumnus according to usual standards. So, can we get some references for these, which both establish their notability and that they attended to school? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I added Dominic and Gary because I was at school with them from 1974 to 1981. What is acceptable as verification that they were at the school? As for notability I just went to Amazon and searched Breathless on the music section, and the first item is Shayne Wards 'Breathless' , the second and fifth items are albums by Dominic and Garys band, so if their work is sold by Amazon,after nearly 30 years since they formed, - is that proof of notability? Also on the wikipedia page for the band Breathless, it says Dominic worked with This Mortal Coil on their album Filigree and Shadow. Sayerslle ( talk) 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That's setting the bar quite high for me! I've looked at n.m.e. com and theres a biography of the band but it doesn't speak about the pre-history of the band. On the bands own website the bassist, a woman Dominic met when he worked in a record shop mentions that Dominic and Gary met at school, but doesn't name the school unfortunately. How likely is it there is an interview anywhere that mentions John Fisher. I'll keep looking for a water-tight reference, - I hope it doesn't get deleted though because it is 100% true - I was in their class and Gary was a musical encyclopedia even then. In the meantime the vandaliser is a fraid-coat who won't discuss the issue ! Sayerslle ( talk) 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
someone started adding eople that dont meet wikipedia standards at end of 2008. i removed it but people switch it back to include it. content dispute and they need to source it not just keep reverting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.42.163 ( talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
But you're deleting Dominic Appleton and Gary Mundy from the band Breathless, who are , like I said evidently still active and if you go to Amazon their records are readily available, 30 years after they were formed etc..And youre saying its not properly sourced but you don't even 'source' yourself, youre an unsigned IP. Who are you to say Dominic and Gary don't meet Wikipedia standards. What hurts wikipedia are dumbass edit wars. Sayerslle ( talk) 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And if I remove all the names on the list, because none are referenced , would you defend that action as defending wikipedia from the plague of unverifiability? the unregistered user doesn't explain why it demands references for some, and not others. So this one , has to provide a reference because administrator zzuuss and another say you have to or they'll delete to protect wikipedia integrity, but this other one, doesn't , because zzuuss and ip are comfortable with that. So it boils down to your whim really. Sayerslle ( talk) 10:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you search ' the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com ' and then search john fisher the entry for Thursday 6 March 2008 which is founders day apparently, Fr Tim Finnegan mentions he was at the school that day to give a talk, and that he was at the school himself between the years 1969-1976. So that is verification. Is he notable . I don't know, but I think he is illustrative of a strand of the schools outlook because looking at the blog it seems kind of ultra-Catholic and keen on latin, so his inclusion in the list of former pupils does kind of tell you something about the school. May all its delusions come true Sayerslle ( talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference for bill nighy etc. from this is cornwall etc..this could be one of those circular things, where this is cornwall took the names of famous ex-pupils from wikipedia. Can't we get a better preferably pre-wikipedia reference for Bill Nighy at least. I'm not being picky I just think its not fair if breathless get removed because I can't find a reference, when I was with them at the school, when others stay with refs probably supplied by articles themselves taking their info from the unreferenced wikipedia Sayerslle ( talk) 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
fwiw,I happened to have noticed this, and in my opinion the version that was protected was--purely by chance--the right version. The paragraph that was removed needs much stronger sources than the one given to avoid being defamatory. I would very advise against restoring it without them. A local newspaper is not an acceptable sole RS for accusations of this magniitude-- I may have an instinctive feeling that the accusation may possibly have some basis, but that hardly affects the matter. DGG ( talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
this is nothing like an advertisement for the school. undue weight for that paragraph when it doesnt have good sources. styop bullying legit editors marlon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.64.106 ( talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
no marlon is wrtong and your obviously biased. unprotect the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.64.106 ( talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I told you back when I protected the article due to a dispute that further edit-warring would not be tolerated. You chose to ignore me, and several people who warned you about edit-warring. This is your final warning. If you continue to edit war against consensus (or at the very least, with no consensus backing you), you will be blocked. I see three warnings this week on your talk page about edit-warring. Enigma msg 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the disputed paragraph: does anyone take issue with it being removed? I see no consensus for its inclusion. Enigma msg 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This section badly needs cleaning up. I am happy so to do but I should like to seek support, here, first. A prerequisite is that attendance at the school should be reliably sourced - no source must mean no inclusion. The second prerequisite is notability. A page is not needed to demonstrate notability but it helps! Looking at the red-links some have no claims to notability and for some the claims can be simply tested. Take Mike Pointing for example. If he has played in a competitive match for Harlequins first team then he meets WP:Athlete. If he has just played for their academy then he doesn't. If Michael Latham is an influential film-maker why doesn't he have a page? My view is that if an editor thinks that an alumnus is notable and feels strongly that they should be included in this list then write a stub! It is always quicker to write a stub than have a long debate trying to establish their notability separately.
To deal with this situation efficiently I am proposing that red-linked or unsourced people should be moved here. This preserves the information that we have about them and they can then be moved back to the article as sources are found or notability is demonstrated. Views, please. TerriersFan ( talk) 00:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
this user edit wars and calls my edits vandalism even though they aren't. this is wrong. I tried to warn him and he removed it calling it vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husounde ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoever runs this website please make it clear that the school was selective between 1992 and 2000. Because this is the only reason people sent their kids there otherwise we would have gone Private or Grammar. It makes kids who attended between 92 and 2000 out to be comprehensive school boys!
This will impact their job/career chances!
Thank you,
Mr and Mrs Horan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.140.72 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please get a half decent school logo up on this site please i've been asking for 2 years.
And also please stress the school was selective from 1992-1999 and that it simply was not a bog standard comp.
Thanks,
Mr Horan (The previous text was moved here from the main article page.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.81.119 ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:JFS2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
I believe this article firstly is written like an advertisement especially the beginning paragraphs. This is most likely due to the author being a me,her of the school causing a biased and better view of the school. I will rectify this. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 22:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely right, although some of the stuff about Oxbridge and high Russell Group university entrant rates is correct it was very much akin to an add, I have improved this a lot as you will see. I also suspect an alumnus had chosen to highlight these points. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramboed4545 ( talk • contribs)
The pot pourri approach to article structure was hindering reading and editing. I have pulled it back to resemble a more normal school article- St John Fisher Catholic School.The article is about the school- that is architecture, curriculum etc and we need to focus on that, a huge part will be the struggle that the diocese and governors have had with selection but that should be contained as history and not become all embracing. While sports results interest some, they should take undue weight. If tables are used, then they should be used properly |+ for example. ClemRutter ( talk) 09:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The section on Simon James Green does not adhere well to NPOV, it starts off talking about the author/book in a negative tone, suggesting that a strong point of the visit was to make youngest boys in the school purchase the books, also at no point do the sourced citations talk of "Catholic teaching on healthy relationships". I suggest this section needs a rewrite/change in approach. Rhagfyr ( talk) 15:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
more refs pics welcome Victuallers 09:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) That stockbroker person was american, and his own article implies he was braught up in america.
You are correct. He did not attend JFS Breakfast100 10:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldnt the Famous Past Pupils be put into some type of order? Also shouldnt they have their dates while at he school listed? Breakfast100 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been loads of vandalism recently Breakfast100 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help sort through the material? It looks like a lot of the edits have been vandalism edits, but it's hard for me to figure out. Enigma msg! 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a former pupil (1968 - 76) I'm not at all confident in the accuracy of the sentence "The School has always had a reputation for firm discipline." Prior to the appointment of Mgr McLean in the late 1950s, the School was said to have had quite a poor reputation locally for behaviour: this information from the mother of a pupil during the change-over of headship. Does anybody please have a link for the Croydon Guardian article, so I can check the actual text? thanks. Rpw934 ( talk) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I was at JFS from '74 to '81 and I wouldn't say it was a very strict school for discipline. There was a Mr Tracey who chain smoked and whacked you with a wooden spoon if you got reported to him and I think he caned for serious matters. I think the prep school was worse in a way, I remember some boys being slippered quite badly just because their homework was deemed not good enough. What I hated about the school was its insistence you played rugby and never let you play football during Games. I think they had a snob preference for rugby. The swines. Sayerslle ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed some people who are not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.241.128 ( talk) 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I also removed some bullshit defamation that has no real rteference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.241.128 ( talk) 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please comment, best with citing sources. --Say Headcheese!-- hexa Chord 2 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought it would be good to use this period of protection to gather references here to help editors achieve a consensus version.
For the admissions policy criticisms, an online version of the Croydon Guardian article is at [5] under a different title from the print version currently used, but it does appear to contain all the relevant quotes. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The actual OSA decisions are available from [6] - unfortunately they are hosted as .doc files, and it appears to be impossible to link directly to them. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ofsted reports are available here [7]. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, the section that keeps getting deleted is the newspaper report about the bullying, not the admissions policy, and the reference for that doesn't link you to the article so you can read it for yourself. Personally I think it's fairly insane to believe it has been invented, but it isn't a satisfactory reference as it stands I suppose. Also some of the former pupils get repeatedly deleted, in the same vandalising action that blanks the criticism of the bullying atmosphere, by some IP at Cuny Education in Brooklyn. I think that IP address should be blocked unless whoever is editing explains their problem. Sayerslle ( talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
But the section on bullying is very short really, so the 'weight' is hardly excessive; the first hand testimony of ex-pupils can't be obliterated by Ofsted anyway. Put both in then, the first hand accounts of some ex-pupils and the Ofsted report findings . Anyone who just obliterates the paragraph is a vandal. 92.10.167.35 ( talk) 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Parents are very pleased with the school and pupils are proud to attend. They overwhelmingly agree that the school and teaching are good. Concerns pupils express are about bullying and behaviour, and the care and support they receive. Inspectors found no evidence of bullying or of much unsatisfactory behaviour. Care and support are good." (Ofsted 2004, p8)
But that paragraph still bothers me . Children express concern over bullying, and the care and support they receive....Inspectors find no evidence of bullying, and say the care they receive is good. That seems to me like, the pupils say there are problems and Ofsted just lay out an 'official line', 'Pupils are proud to attend.' This is the Ofsted that said Haringey Councils childrens services were good until Baby P made them check again. I'm not comparing the situations in any way Im just saying Ofsted are hardly perfect arbiters of anything and their inspectors deserve to be given less weight than people who day in day out were there. Sayerslle ( talk) 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Another part of the edit war, though I would normally expect this to be an incidental casualty of the reversion approach, is the list of notable alumni. There are three entries which are being added and removed, and so should be referenced or removed:
Of course the others should also be referenced, but as these three form part of the edit war it is important to ensure they follow policy. I have to say Fr Tim Finigan does not at first glance appear to be a notable alumnus according to usual standards. So, can we get some references for these, which both establish their notability and that they attended to school? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I added Dominic and Gary because I was at school with them from 1974 to 1981. What is acceptable as verification that they were at the school? As for notability I just went to Amazon and searched Breathless on the music section, and the first item is Shayne Wards 'Breathless' , the second and fifth items are albums by Dominic and Garys band, so if their work is sold by Amazon,after nearly 30 years since they formed, - is that proof of notability? Also on the wikipedia page for the band Breathless, it says Dominic worked with This Mortal Coil on their album Filigree and Shadow. Sayerslle ( talk) 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That's setting the bar quite high for me! I've looked at n.m.e. com and theres a biography of the band but it doesn't speak about the pre-history of the band. On the bands own website the bassist, a woman Dominic met when he worked in a record shop mentions that Dominic and Gary met at school, but doesn't name the school unfortunately. How likely is it there is an interview anywhere that mentions John Fisher. I'll keep looking for a water-tight reference, - I hope it doesn't get deleted though because it is 100% true - I was in their class and Gary was a musical encyclopedia even then. In the meantime the vandaliser is a fraid-coat who won't discuss the issue ! Sayerslle ( talk) 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
someone started adding eople that dont meet wikipedia standards at end of 2008. i removed it but people switch it back to include it. content dispute and they need to source it not just keep reverting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.42.163 ( talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
But you're deleting Dominic Appleton and Gary Mundy from the band Breathless, who are , like I said evidently still active and if you go to Amazon their records are readily available, 30 years after they were formed etc..And youre saying its not properly sourced but you don't even 'source' yourself, youre an unsigned IP. Who are you to say Dominic and Gary don't meet Wikipedia standards. What hurts wikipedia are dumbass edit wars. Sayerslle ( talk) 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And if I remove all the names on the list, because none are referenced , would you defend that action as defending wikipedia from the plague of unverifiability? the unregistered user doesn't explain why it demands references for some, and not others. So this one , has to provide a reference because administrator zzuuss and another say you have to or they'll delete to protect wikipedia integrity, but this other one, doesn't , because zzuuss and ip are comfortable with that. So it boils down to your whim really. Sayerslle ( talk) 10:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you search ' the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com ' and then search john fisher the entry for Thursday 6 March 2008 which is founders day apparently, Fr Tim Finnegan mentions he was at the school that day to give a talk, and that he was at the school himself between the years 1969-1976. So that is verification. Is he notable . I don't know, but I think he is illustrative of a strand of the schools outlook because looking at the blog it seems kind of ultra-Catholic and keen on latin, so his inclusion in the list of former pupils does kind of tell you something about the school. May all its delusions come true Sayerslle ( talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference for bill nighy etc. from this is cornwall etc..this could be one of those circular things, where this is cornwall took the names of famous ex-pupils from wikipedia. Can't we get a better preferably pre-wikipedia reference for Bill Nighy at least. I'm not being picky I just think its not fair if breathless get removed because I can't find a reference, when I was with them at the school, when others stay with refs probably supplied by articles themselves taking their info from the unreferenced wikipedia Sayerslle ( talk) 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
fwiw,I happened to have noticed this, and in my opinion the version that was protected was--purely by chance--the right version. The paragraph that was removed needs much stronger sources than the one given to avoid being defamatory. I would very advise against restoring it without them. A local newspaper is not an acceptable sole RS for accusations of this magniitude-- I may have an instinctive feeling that the accusation may possibly have some basis, but that hardly affects the matter. DGG ( talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
this is nothing like an advertisement for the school. undue weight for that paragraph when it doesnt have good sources. styop bullying legit editors marlon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.64.106 ( talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
no marlon is wrtong and your obviously biased. unprotect the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.64.106 ( talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I told you back when I protected the article due to a dispute that further edit-warring would not be tolerated. You chose to ignore me, and several people who warned you about edit-warring. This is your final warning. If you continue to edit war against consensus (or at the very least, with no consensus backing you), you will be blocked. I see three warnings this week on your talk page about edit-warring. Enigma msg 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the disputed paragraph: does anyone take issue with it being removed? I see no consensus for its inclusion. Enigma msg 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This section badly needs cleaning up. I am happy so to do but I should like to seek support, here, first. A prerequisite is that attendance at the school should be reliably sourced - no source must mean no inclusion. The second prerequisite is notability. A page is not needed to demonstrate notability but it helps! Looking at the red-links some have no claims to notability and for some the claims can be simply tested. Take Mike Pointing for example. If he has played in a competitive match for Harlequins first team then he meets WP:Athlete. If he has just played for their academy then he doesn't. If Michael Latham is an influential film-maker why doesn't he have a page? My view is that if an editor thinks that an alumnus is notable and feels strongly that they should be included in this list then write a stub! It is always quicker to write a stub than have a long debate trying to establish their notability separately.
To deal with this situation efficiently I am proposing that red-linked or unsourced people should be moved here. This preserves the information that we have about them and they can then be moved back to the article as sources are found or notability is demonstrated. Views, please. TerriersFan ( talk) 00:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
this user edit wars and calls my edits vandalism even though they aren't. this is wrong. I tried to warn him and he removed it calling it vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husounde ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoever runs this website please make it clear that the school was selective between 1992 and 2000. Because this is the only reason people sent their kids there otherwise we would have gone Private or Grammar. It makes kids who attended between 92 and 2000 out to be comprehensive school boys!
This will impact their job/career chances!
Thank you,
Mr and Mrs Horan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.140.72 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please get a half decent school logo up on this site please i've been asking for 2 years.
And also please stress the school was selective from 1992-1999 and that it simply was not a bog standard comp.
Thanks,
Mr Horan (The previous text was moved here from the main article page.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.81.119 ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:JFS2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
I believe this article firstly is written like an advertisement especially the beginning paragraphs. This is most likely due to the author being a me,her of the school causing a biased and better view of the school. I will rectify this. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 22:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely right, although some of the stuff about Oxbridge and high Russell Group university entrant rates is correct it was very much akin to an add, I have improved this a lot as you will see. I also suspect an alumnus had chosen to highlight these points. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramboed4545 ( talk • contribs)
The pot pourri approach to article structure was hindering reading and editing. I have pulled it back to resemble a more normal school article- St John Fisher Catholic School.The article is about the school- that is architecture, curriculum etc and we need to focus on that, a huge part will be the struggle that the diocese and governors have had with selection but that should be contained as history and not become all embracing. While sports results interest some, they should take undue weight. If tables are used, then they should be used properly |+ for example. ClemRutter ( talk) 09:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The section on Simon James Green does not adhere well to NPOV, it starts off talking about the author/book in a negative tone, suggesting that a strong point of the visit was to make youngest boys in the school purchase the books, also at no point do the sourced citations talk of "Catholic teaching on healthy relationships". I suggest this section needs a rewrite/change in approach. Rhagfyr ( talk) 15:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)