Talk:Lady Eleanor Holles School

message: 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)
thread_title: Use of the ISI Inspection Report

message: 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)
replies: text: Abandon the stupid citation templates for these - put the sources in a "References" section at the bottom, and just use short references like "ISI, p. 99". Look at any of my articles to see how it works - Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours is a simple, varied example. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Page links in named citations

message: 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)
thread_title: Refimprove tag for missing citations

message: 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)
replies: text: notable people throughout Wikipedia require an article of their own ‘’first’’. Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ALUMNI is the guideline for school articles, which is in keeping with the WP:NLIST/WP:WTAF basis. Essentially yes, WP:BIO is the bar. They need not have an article, but having a viable article is sufficient, or else giving enough references to demonstrate notability (in the wikipedia meaning) is necessary. Probably best to keep this discussion here (not my user talk) since it is about this article and at least one other editor is participating. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, really it should just be blue links, or redlinks that are clear gaps. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very clear guidance on this subject in the School article guidelines, which, lacking a local consensus, should always be followed for school articles. Outside of the head person, we do not mention any staff whatsoever, unless they are notable. Lists of staff are virtually always unencyclopedic. With sourcing, lists of headmasters are encyclopedic. Same for students. We never mention individual students. We never discuss individual achievement by either students or staff. Notable students and staff should generally only be discussed in the context of the notable people's section (irregardless of what it is called, and I might add there is no good reason I can see to use idiosyncratic titles for the notable section(s). If it only includes former students, "Notable alumni" is the preferred title. If staff are included, you can alternatively either lump them together as "Notable people" or have two separate sections, "Notable staff" and "Notable alumni"). One of the reasons this restriction is in the guidelines is to reenforce the notion that the article is about the school, not the people who work there or those who studied there. Also keep in mind that like any encyclopedia article, an article about a school should be constructed from the point of view that we are writing about what others have written about the school, not directly about the school itself. Members of Wikiproject Schools are generally happy to help if you have any problems. The Wikiproject of course does not control the article, but the encyclopedia as a whole does benefit from using similar styling in similar articles, such as schools. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, , that "notable" is sort of tautological and redundant – we don't mention any that aren't, so we don't need to specify that those mentioned are. "People" is a perfectly good section title. On notability, that fearsome dragon Garwood Scott is probably notable by our standards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure Ruth Garwood Scott is notable outside the school. There are only a couple of passing mentions on Google. She is rightly in the list of heads, and I will add a sentence about her, but I don't think she'd warrant an article. Rhanbury (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: List of former teachers and pupils

message: 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)
thread_title: Use of primary source for curriculum

message: 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)
replies: text: That is exactly what you don't do. You are a conflicted editor. If additions you have made are challenged, the last thing you want to do is put them back without first establishing a consensus. That could easily get you topic banned. Can you provide a source for the list? At least a part of it should be easy, as there has been at least one book written about the school. The quote you pulled from the guideline refers to their accomplishments at the school, not their CV. Where they came from, and where they went have nothing to do with the school, nor does who they may be related to. Or their lifespan for that matter. We'll see what others have to say. John from Idegon (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can see that is a sensible guideline. I must say as an inexperienced editor it is very hard to do anything without contravening some guideline or other, and you wind up getting smacked a lot for unintentional transgressions. Anyway, I'm going try and get it right. The list of heads with their dates in office (apart from the most recent) comes from page 190 of "Grace and Integrity" which I have cited multiple times as the definitive work on the history of the school. I have only used the most recent few rather than the whole list of 30 or so. I have included the citation (without page numbers, per the discussion above, but I could put a full citation if that would help), so I'm not sure what else you require on this aspect? Other secondary sources from up to a century ago would take a lot of finding as they will be offline and non-searchable, and the accuracy of the information is not in dispute so it shouldn't need multiple citations. Also, most of the other schools articles I have looked at, even for very famous schools, don't have any citations for this section, and never a different citation for every line. Regarding the relevance of the description after some entries, I would have thought that the schools and institutions from which a head comes and goes are relevant context to the nature of the school, however I have had a look at some other school articles and few if any include this information so I'm happy to leave it out if that is what it takes to get the section reinstated. I think you are agreeing that the comments about what they did at the school are relevant, so can stay? I don't think lifespan was mentioned? How do we progress now? Is there a way of requesting review from other School-focussed editors? Should we put the section in the sandbox and edit there until it is acceptable? Rhanbury (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Apologies for adding a link to this on your talk page. I thought I was being helpful, doing what many others had done, but you seem to have taken it as an attack on your competence, which I certainly did not intend. I thought I had better apologise here as you explicitly asked me not to post on your talk page. Gosh, this is tricky. I'll try to only make each new mistake once. Rhanbury (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE says "a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable." The policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY allows "simple listings ... of ... CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries." The spirit of the guidance WP:WPSCH/AG#OS not only allows but also encourages inclusion of the list of headteachers.  Many "featured" and "good" school articles have the headmasters/ principals section, where most of the listed heads are not notable in their own rights (e.g. no wikilink). Insisting that only notable heads may be listed goes against the spirit of the policy, the guidance, and against the current de-facto practice. Hope these references will help. I am presently trying to persuade the Schools Project community to add a clarifying statement about NN headmasters to the guidance. Yymmff (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, indeed! If you scroll down to the bottom of this talk section, you will find that I created a complete list of heads in exactly the way that you suggest, and in the format used in multiple other school articles, ready for copy/paste into the article. I have promised not to touch the page because of my COI (the headmistress is my wife), so I have been hoping that some editor without COI will do this. I would be very grateful if you would! I don't think the list is in any way controversial - it is on public display at the school, and it is not the sort of thing that ever has a secondary source. Rhanbury (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be happy to help. (1) Per WP:COIRESPONSE I'd have to independently check the sources. Your chief source of previous headmistresses seems to be "'Grace and Integrity': A Portrait of The Lady"? It is not online, and not in my local library. After you're all done with the edits to the draft below, can you privately email me the the links to images of relevant pages in that book? (2) I second John from Idegon's recommendation to include all headmistresses. Include from-to years. (3) Make sure that each person on the list has her own reference to a reliable source(s), in case of a book include the specific page number(s) in the book.  (4) I also recommend including a literal copy-paste quote field in each citation (each person - a different relevant quote).  (5) I highly recommend, following the advise from WP:WPSCH/AG, include "a short description of their achievements" at the school (like the ones you have under "Headmistresses since the move to Hampton" below), and/or a very short reworded (from your cited sources) summation of interesting facts from their biography.  Make it approx. 1-3 sentences per person. (6) My golden standard would be an example in Carre's Grammar School#Headmasters. Note that each person has a reference and 2-3 sentences of interesting to the reader info. Also note that their long list is collapsible, but probably your list is not too long to require this feature. Theirs is a table but a simple list of bulleted paragraphs would look better, in my opinion. Yymmff (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! I'm happy with 1-3. I agree with you on item 5, however when I included other information about the previous heads apart from name and date, that information was immediately removed by other editors, despite the guidance you quote (albeit that the info was more about what they did whilst head than their previous biography - see my earlier attempt at a list below). It would be a lot of work to summarise 25 previous heads, even if that information is known (even more if trying to find quotes going back 3 centuries for item 4) and I suspect it would all be immediately reverted by someone, partly for reasons of preferred style, but mainly because the source would inevitably be Grace and Integrity which other editors (especially John from Idegon) feel strongly should not be allowed as a source, because publication was funded by the school. This fact seems to over-ride any consideration of the actual quality of the historical research. I don't have time to go to the metropolitan archives and dig out the original manuscripts of the governors meetings. My suggestion would be that we firstly get just the list in and see if that sticks (it may also be reverted for some reason as yet unknown). Then, a few days later, add a little more information about one or two of the recent heads (which can be independently sourced), then if that sticks, some information on earlier heads from Grace and integrity. If that all sticks, I'll complete the set (with less or no information for the earliest heads). How does that sound as an approach? I confess that even I am a bit worried that 25 heads * say 3 lines each would be 75 lines and make up by far the largest part of the article which seems inappropriate in terms of balance. Rhanbury (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you choose don't do #5 (I'm OK - it's your call), then #4 is even more important because this will allow the readers to learn something interesting about each head teacher if not from the article text then at least from the direct quote in the notes/references section. Go ahead, make the draft! Yymmff (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: List of headteachers

message: In chronological order, with dates in office.
* Nora Nickalls 1915–1944, supervised the move to Hampton. The assembly hall is named after her.
* Mary Richards 1944–1949.
* Ruth Garwood Scott 1949–1974, introduced the phrase 'Grace and Integrity' into the school's aims.
* Margaret Smalley 1974–1981.
* Elizabeth Candy 1981–2004
* Gillian Low 2004–2014, re-introduced the house system.
* Heather Hanbury 2014–Present.
*When you make an edit request, please make it in the form "replace x at y with the above" with your properly formatted references in place. Save your arguments for any discussion that may ensue. Create a separate section for each request, and it's best to work one issue through before starting on others. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headmistresses since the move to Hampton 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sub headings in history section 

message: , 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)
thread_title:  Citations for enrollment 

message: , 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  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)
thread_title:  Deletion of most of the History section, and others 

message: 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)
replies: text: And the school itself paid her for it. If it "debunked" something, that cannot be used; for if you are contending that the prior information was somehow "bunk", and she came up with different information, then that is definitively contentious - very simply, that is exactly what "contentious" means. This is exactly why COI editing is discouraged. John from Idegon (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some examples of debunking: Prior to her work the school's foundation date was often quoted as 1711. This is an error that seems to have arisen in the early 20th century. She uncovered a host of documents from the first 200 years of the schools existence, right back to the original foundation, all of which quote 1710. Another myth was that Lady Eleanor was a Lady in Waiting to Queen Anne. She went through all of the Queen's staff lists and found no mention of LEH, and there are no other known omissions, so put this down as wishful thinking on somebody's part. Are you implying that the date of 1711 must stand, for example, because the book was paid for by the school and all of the original documents would count as primary sources? This doesn't feel like the spirit of Wikipedia, which surely should strive for accuracy when there are disputed facts, not just stick to whatever is reported in the most disconnected source, however misinformed. Rhanbury (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

text: In fact, that is exactly why I had added a footnote in the original (since deleted by Spintendo) explaining the difference from some sources. Presumably in this case you would not advocate simply using the figure 1711 with no note that this date was contradicted by anyone (including all the recent school literature). How would you suggest handling this in a way that satisfies WP policies, but bears in mind that ultimately WP is intended to give readers accurate information as far as possible? Rhanbury (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I should probably add that the prior sources suffer from the same issues as Grace and Integrity, as well as being of lower quality for other reasons, mainly because they were several generations of oral history. There were recollections from some alumnae of what they had been taught as children many years before, which they may or may not have remembered correctly, and may or may not have been correct in the first place, especially because people tend to over-remember and even enhance the dramatic aspects of the story. There was a sixth form project writing up the recollections of Nora Nickalls, former head mistress, which suffers from the same problems. Elizabeth Hossain's primary sources were the treasurer's account books and 23 volumes, each 700 pages long, of handwritten trustees minutes. She has all the citations, but I don't think these are any use in Wikipedia as they would be primary sources? The guideline at WP:Primary says that primary sources may be used for establishing facts, but many editors seem to disagree with that in practice, and use here would almost certainly require some interpretation which would count as original research. So the danger is that if you get too strict on the use of sources you wind up with no history section at all, which I don't think is in the spirit of Wikipedia. My reading of the various guidelines, is that you need high quality independent secondary sources to establish notability, but that within the article you can use non-independent secondary sources and primary sources of information where no better sources are available. In the guidelines there is great emphasis that the purpose of the rules on independence is to avoid bias, so if we keep that goal in mind, and also bear in mind that the ultimate objective is to produce a readable, interesting, and accurate article, then surely we can make some progress? Rhanbury (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Millennium publishing 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Agreed. There has been more than a touch of humbug about this, and especially some of the removals should be revisited. Agree that some photos would be good. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you Kudpung and Johnbod for your kind words and support. They are very much appreciated. I have indeed been very downhearted by the whole experience and feel that I have let everybody down by playing the politics and personalities badly. (by everybody I mean the community of likely readers of the article). I'm sure there is an approach which can result in a GA based on the best sources we have, even if they are not perfect, and I'm sorry I was not able to find it. In terms of photos, the school is now on summer holidays, and even in the Autumn I am only ever there in the evenings occasionally. However, I can probably persuade a member of staff to take some photos and upload them. I presume / hope that COI doesn't matter for photos, as they can't really be subject to bias? Rhanbury (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't, though after this, who knows. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

text:   , There would be absolutely no concerns of COI.  Nothing special is required, just some shots of the exterior. You can take the photos yourself. They will be accepted at our sister project Commons where they should preferably be uploaded Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to reflect 

message: 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)
replies: text: I suggest that if you want to reference previous versions of the page that you use diffs rather than copying most of the article. See  WP:D&L for how to do this (or WP:CDLG if you need more advanced diffs). Meters (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm a conflicted editor and therefore can't touch the main article, my idea is to use the sub page as a workspace away from the public eye to work up the history (and to a lesser extent other sections) in co-operation with knowledgeable but conflicted parties such as the school archivist, adding the best citations / references we can find, until it is in a state where a non-conflicted editor would be happy to copy over a whole section into the main article. It would be almost impossible to request separate updates to the main article sentence by sentence.Rhanbury (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of 'long draft' sub page 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: The main  thing  to  understand is that  there are two  distinct  aspects  to  sources for  Wikipedia articles. There are those that confer notability, which in  the cases of HCGS (one of the oldest  schools in  the country), and MalCol (one of the most  prestigious schools in  the country) is in  no  doubt. Sufficient  and significant independent  sources are provided to  demonstrate why  these schools are unique in  their own way. Then there are sources that  support the details in  the articles and in these cases, primary sources can be assumed to  be reliable  if they are verifiable from those sources, such as the schools'  own websites, newsletters and prospectuses. Neither of these articles are promotional  in  any way - one is a state school with  direct  central government  funding and only  accepts students from its catchment areas, the other is so prestigious  that  parents put  their children on  the waiting list before they are born (. and I'm sure there would be a source for  that too  if it  were important enough  to  mention  in  the article -  and it  isn't). Oh, and yes, I  have a COI: I  was born and grew up  in the Malvern area nearly  70  years ago. On  one visit  back  to  Europe, I  spent  several  days rummaging  through old papers in  the attics of the mediaeval  buildings to  find documents to  support  the article  that  the school  itself did not  know existed, as well  as visiting the county and ecclesiastical archives. I  also  wrote  and/or expanded all the articles in  :Category:Malvern, Worcestershire, including most  of the schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good guidance . A specific question: some of the primary sources for LEH only exist in paper form, and are not referenced in any catalogue. I'm thinking particularly of a letter from an alumna and the programme for the 300th anniversary celebrations, which only exist in the school archives, and the minutes of governors' meetings which only exist in the metropolitan archives. These can be referenced by description, but it would be hard for anyone to check them, so can they be used? Could they be linked to a scan or photograph of the relevant item uploaded to wikimedia commons? I have had a bit of a look around and not come across any relevant examples so far.Rhanbury (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , It depends whether the information you wish to add is relevant and needs to be included. Good articles are not necessarily long and padding is not a good idea. There is a common misconception that once established as notable, an article is free to contain anything the contributors like as long as it can be somehow sourced - look at the rambling mess of Nottingham High School which breaks nearly every rule in the WP:WPSCH/AG book - especially the photos of alumni. That said, I'm not around much on Wikipedia these days and don't have time to get involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was an important sentence on the history that was best referenced to the minutes of the governors or trustees meetings...?Rhanbury (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of primary sources in school histories