Talk:Ermysted's Grammar School: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
::The first sentence is presumably stating the definition of a "questionable" source. Fair enough. However, the biometric issue is not a "contentious claim about a third party". There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent. Nor is is the group "extremist", and it relies on subjective personal opinions only in the capacity of illustrating one group of people's reactions to the move. Moreover, blanking an entirely appropriate section of the article merely because of one supposedly questionable citation does seem a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face! [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.75|131.111.185.75]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.75|talk]]) 09:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
::The first sentence is presumably stating the definition of a "questionable" source. Fair enough. However, the biometric issue is not a "contentious claim about a third party". There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent. Nor is is the group "extremist", and it relies on subjective personal opinions only in the capacity of illustrating one group of people's reactions to the move. Moreover, blanking an entirely appropriate section of the article merely because of one supposedly questionable citation does seem a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face! [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.75|131.111.185.75]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.75|talk]]) 09:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::The sentence about the school council does not need its own section, and can be merged. About this: ''There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent.'' There is, actually, a question of whether this is happening at all. We cannot use Facebook groups as evidence of dissent or reactions. They are not reliable sources and cannot be used as such. It would be like using a Myspace page, which is similarly frowned upon. I have asked for a third opinion, so we shall get a definitive answer soon. [[User talk:Aditya|<font color="#191970"><b>Aditya Ex Machina</b></font>]] 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
:::The sentence about the school council does not need its own section, and can be merged. About this: ''There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent.'' There is, actually, a question of whether this is happening at all. We cannot use Facebook groups as evidence of dissent or reactions. They are not reliable sources and cannot be used as such. It would be like using a Myspace page, which is similarly frowned upon. I have asked for a third opinion, so we shall get a definitive answer soon. [[User talk:Aditya|<font color="#191970"><b>Aditya Ex Machina</b></font>]] 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: Perhaps for proof of the occurrence of this a scan of the documents detailing the plans (official school letters) would suffice? Certainly the facebook group represents the dissent shown by pupils; the original text described that there was a controversy and the group merely shows that this controversy is present.--[[Special:Contributions/86.148.247.201|86.148.247.201]] ([[User talk:86.148.247.201|talk]]) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
:::: Perhaps for proof of the occurrence of this a scan of the documents detailing the plans (official school letters) would suffice? Certainly the facebook group represents the dissent shown by pupils; the original text described that there was a controversy and the group merely shows that this controversy is present.--[[Special:Contributions/86.148.247.201|86.148.247.201]] ([[User talk:86.148.247.201|talk]]) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Wait, you're seriously suggesting that there is a reasonable chance that 270+ people, including members of the school council, have entirely invented this issue 'for the giggles'? This is just deletionism at its most damaging. Incidentally, it'll probably be in the Craven Herald soon anyway. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.75|131.111.185.75]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.75|talk]]) 10:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:56, 1 May 2010
 | Schools Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Yorkshire C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Drama?
Should the House Drama and School play be mentioned in here? Doran . 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whyever not?--AlbertW 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add it to the Music section then. Doran . 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Ermystedsshield.jpg
Image:Ermystedsshield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
yeah i would have to agree. The ermysteds logo is of no fair use to anyone, as it is somewhat of a snub. it should be creative commons, although it is incredibly common, and lacks creativity.
-ashworth the prime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.245.37 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
School Times
At what times does this school start and finish?
Starts 8.45am, ends 3.45pm. Lunch break 11.55am - 12.50pm. 86.29.22.99 (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Terrorism
I was just wandering if someone should write something about the attempted terrorist attack on the school last month? seems kind of important to mention., -Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.244.218 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide a reference that this actually occurred. Hut 8.5 08:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Source The Craven Herald, 17 October P.4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.244.218 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kev.
I read that article.
I Too think that this should be documented under wikipedia as a testament to our times. We must end terrorism within schools. Isn't that clear?-Pauly
Hi Kev, ive updated the page with the correct information.
Keep it groovy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- If there really was an attempted terrorist attack here it would have been reported outside the local press. It wasn't, therefore we shouldn't claim that there was unless a better source can be provided. Local newspapers don't make very good sources anyway. Hut 8.5 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I remember the weeks that this was the talk of the town! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteFAQ (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No this should not be mentioned. It is a conspiracy. I saw a video on youtube the other day and it turns out terrorists DON'T EVEN EXIST. Its a propaghanda offensive put out by the goverment! WTF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.83.252 (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The Winter Gala
deserve a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.104.82 (talk)
- Is it a topic that has been covered by reliable sources? --Onorem♠Dil 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Onorem, is it wrong that you turn me on? Yes the winter gala is real, i have seen it, i have tasted its glories such as the mince pie stall, and the bouncy castle. ooh! please continue to grace me with your presence, and i promise to continue to post. Smooches x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.12.75 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
School Council
Blanking a section on the grounds of entirely spurious concerns over reliability is hardly good conduct. Please could you explain why this group, specifically this group without reference to general Wikipedia protocol, is unreliable? 131.111.185.75 (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- From WP:RS: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." No Facebook group, sorry. Aditya Ex Machina 08:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The first sentence is presumably stating the definition of a "questionable" source. Fair enough. However, the biometric issue is not a "contentious claim about a third party". There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent. Nor is is the group "extremist", and it relies on subjective personal opinions only in the capacity of illustrating one group of people's reactions to the move. Moreover, blanking an entirely appropriate section of the article merely because of one supposedly questionable citation does seem a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face! 131.111.185.75 (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence about the school council does not need its own section, and can be merged. About this: There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent. There is, actually, a question of whether this is happening at all. We cannot use Facebook groups as evidence of dissent or reactions. They are not reliable sources and cannot be used as such. It would be like using a Myspace page, which is similarly frowned upon. I have asked for a third opinion, so we shall get a definitive answer soon. Aditya Ex Machina 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps for proof of the occurrence of this a scan of the documents detailing the plans (official school letters) would suffice? Certainly the facebook group represents the dissent shown by pupils; the original text described that there was a controversy and the group merely shows that this controversy is present.--86.148.247.201 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, you're seriously suggesting that there is a reasonable chance that 270+ people, including members of the school council, have entirely invented this issue 'for the giggles'? This is just deletionism at its most damaging. Incidentally, it'll probably be in the Craven Herald soon anyway. 131.111.185.75 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps for proof of the occurrence of this a scan of the documents detailing the plans (official school letters) would suffice? Certainly the facebook group represents the dissent shown by pupils; the original text described that there was a controversy and the group merely shows that this controversy is present.--86.148.247.201 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence about the school council does not need its own section, and can be merged. About this: There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent. There is, actually, a question of whether this is happening at all. We cannot use Facebook groups as evidence of dissent or reactions. They are not reliable sources and cannot be used as such. It would be like using a Myspace page, which is similarly frowned upon. I have asked for a third opinion, so we shall get a definitive answer soon. Aditya Ex Machina 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The first sentence is presumably stating the definition of a "questionable" source. Fair enough. However, the biometric issue is not a "contentious claim about a third party". There is no question of whether it is happening, or whether a there is a groundswell of dissent. Nor is is the group "extremist", and it relies on subjective personal opinions only in the capacity of illustrating one group of people's reactions to the move. Moreover, blanking an entirely appropriate section of the article merely because of one supposedly questionable citation does seem a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face! 131.111.185.75 (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)