Talk:Summerhill School

Centennial

I'm thinking about having a go at rewriting this article for Summerhill's 100th anniversary. Struggling a bit with finding contemporary sources (most are historical) if anyone has recommendations.

• Turner, Christopher (March 28, 2014). "A Conversation About Happiness, review – a childhood at Summerhill". The Guardian. Retrieved March 27, 2021.

czar 02:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

STEM

Have many of Summerhill's alumni gone on to excel in the STEM area? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC).

No response. So I guess that the answer is none. There is an insightful article on the pros and cons of progressive education by Miriam Gross.[1] Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC).

The school isn't particularly known for generating luminaries, if that's what you mean. There is a book called https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/summerhill-alumni-what-we-learnt-school-scandal-2373066.html After Summerhill] that documents the lives of some alumni, if interested. czar 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I see one person with success in STEM, which shows that with natural ability, favorable family background and persistence the handicap of a non-academic education can be overcome. Miriam Gross is another case. I guess that the school has a reputation for producing laid-back lotus-eaters, but people with enough ability and persistence can break through to the educational mainstream. I suspect that some alumni without enough of those qualities or a lack of luck may resent the inadequate education that handicapped them. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC).

(Self?) promotion of unknown person

A couple of times User:Kingfisherhide has included the claim that a film about the school has been made by an "independent film-maker" The justification recently given by this editor - who has only a short track record with Wikipedia - is as follows:...

>>I believe it is relevant to include "independent filmmaker" because Chadwick was not commissioned by a broadcaster, like we assign the CBBC series to CBBC, to give the reader the whole information it is worth saying it was an independent production!

This is (no doubt unintentionally) deceptive. For all we know this film about the school is a promotional exercise, perhaps even funded and made by the school itself - the only source given is the film's own website , rather than reviews or other secondary ("independent") sources.

It is perhaps notable that in the source given (the promotional website for the film) Chadwick writes:

>>Both my parents were teachers at Summerhill before the war. My father was A.S.Neill's secretary

This suggests a possible COI.

As to Peter Chadwick himself, there is no information about him or the film even in the less than reliable IMDB. So it is unlikely Chadwick has made more than this one (perhaps puff) film for the school. Even IMDB only lists people called Peter Chadwick with small-scale and/or low-level jobs in the film and tv business: there is no suggestion of a Peter Chadwick who makes films in the sense that is implied by the phrase "independent film-maker".

One promotional film - however well-intentioned and sincerely crafted - does not really deserve much attention and it is hard to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. It is also - given COI as above - unlikely to be "independent" of the school.

Given the limited sourcing I suggest only a minimal mention for the time being, with no inflation of the individual behind it, while we await further (and better) sources.

95.145.170.13 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I find it unusual and uncalled for that you (who is editing not even from a proper wikipedia account, instead an IP address from which this is your only edit), are accusing me of self-promotion. For one thing, I am not Peter Chadwick, born multiple decades after him, and you have no evidence at all to base this unfounded claim against a user. You seem to come at this from a bias viewpoint, presuming ulterior motives by the school, suggesting they have funded this documentary and not declared that. This isn't true. As a filmmaker myself, documentary films, many types of films, are made about topics close to the creators own life, as people feel motivated to share about things that matter to them. Nonetheless, this is a conflict of interest you find with the objectivity of the film, not the film as a source. It is also worth noting that (as mentioned in the film) Chadwick's parents taught at the school over half a century ago, and therefore anyone at the school at present is highly unlikely to have had any close relationship with his family. I do not know how much you know about filmmaking, but you seem to misunderstand what an independent filmmaker is. An independent filmmaker is anyone who makes a film independently that is produced outside of major commissioners/studios. Anyone can be an independent filmmaker, if you make a film off your own prerogative and then publish that/make it viewable to an audience, you are technically an independent filmmaker. It is not a title that "inflates" an individual, or requires any experience at all in film and TV (although this is obviously advantageous in terms of knowing how to use kit and generally make a film), it is simply factual. It is also clear from both what Chadwick has said and other information about the film, and most certainly the method of distribution, that this is an independent production. You have no evidence that this is promotional film, in fact Chadwick himself states that he is not connected to the school on the films website (https://howsummerhillworks.com/contact), so what you are suggesting is an unevidenced conspiracy you have made up yourself, the second after (incorrectly) trying to presume my identity. It is worthy of inclusion on the wikipedia as it is a piece of media made about the school, and the only media I am aware of that shows the school in the last decade. I would recommend against attacks of a personal nature against someones credibility and integrity, I don't particularly appreciate you suggesting that my relatively short experience of wikipedia editing (which is actually longer than yours), makes me unqualified, or your insinuation that I have repeatedly tried to insert false information to (apparently) serve my own gain, which I have fundamentally not done, and it is infact you who is evidentially wrong. Kingfisherhide (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It would appear we are at stalement. Therefore I have opened a WP:3O, see: WP:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements 95.145.170.13 (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, here to give a third opinion. At first glance I was going to say that I thought the whole mention of the film was indeed on shaky ground, because the only source given was the film's website, whereas I agree that there should really be an independent, reliable source covering the film. However, Kingfisherhide, you're in luck, because I found an article from what appears to be a respected local newspaper on it. To me, that's enough to justify the existing brief mention in this article. If both of you agree, we could add a reference to that newspaper article and call ourselves satisfied. Mesocarp (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That’s a useful article and a good source, as you say. I agree with your suggestion and propose we use the descriptor provided in the article of “local film-maker” rather than the disputed “independent film-maker” phrase which could be misunderstood.

Incidentally I see I am now writing from an IP which ends in 91 but am the same editor who ended in 13 before, apologies for any confusion.

95.145.170.91 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused as to why you are so against the descriptor of independent filmmaker. It's not a disputed phrase, it's a commonly used descriptor, you just misunderstood what it meant, it's well defined in magazines and dictionaries and the genre has its own wikipedia page. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I'm just saying why I plan to leave it in, as it is a well-defined and commonly used descriptor that's factual and doesn't suggest any of the writer's personal opinion about the filmmaker. And yep, I'll add that source, thank you for your third opinion Mesocarp it's appreciated! Kingfisherhide (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mesocarp, are you still on this? Here are a few comments for discussion, it would be good to have your input:--

- User:Kingfisherhide, it would be helpful if you would not write as if you owned any part of this article (that not being compatible with Wiki ways of doing things). You are not in a position to "plan to leave it in" as there is currently no consensus.

- The term is not disputed in the sense you have it. Its use in the context of this article is however disputed by me, apologies if that was not clear.

- User:Kingfisherhide's reference to Independent film supports the case that the phrase "independent film-maker" is an overclaim in this context. The article makes clear that the term applies primarily to people like (from the very beginning to the very end of the cited article) Tarantino to Coppola. That is what I meant by the phrase “independent film-maker” being open to misinterpretation. From my own experience, when it comes to documentary (about which there is not much in the cited article) the phrase "independent film-maker" tends to mean someone with substantial artistic and/or political ambitions for their work.

- Whereas the newspaper article (the only source we can currently rely on) makes clear that this has been made by someone just at or only slightly ahead of amateur status / local film club film-making / that sort of thing, who is linked to the school and, unless there is a source to the contrary, has been responsible for what is no doubt a nice bit of promotion for a commercially-run school. There is no evidence that even local papers have reviewed the "film", never mind it being invited to documentary festivals or such like.

- In summary, "local" is accurate whereas "independent" has the potential to be misunderstood (and could be thought to justify the suspicion articulated in the headline of this Talk section).

- Incidentally (and off the point) this is in the main a pretty duff article and could use more and better sources throughout, as well as more objective writing. Are the tags sufficient to get it cleaned up?

95.145.170.91 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

95.145.170.91 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

95.145.170.91 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)