Talk:King's College School, Cambridge

Non Neutral Editing

There has been a lot of back and forth on the article. I tried to removed the puffery, the overly detailed, opinionated analysis (with terms like "worryingly" and "surprisingly" and "highly damning", and improve the flow of the article, which is very poor. These edits are reverted without comment. I will ask that future changes be discussed here first, as there is clearly no consensus being developed, just a back and forth that is not accomplishing anything. If we can't agree, we can then ask for a request for comment from other Wikipedia editors, which may help improve the article. Thank you for your cooperation. Seaphoto^Talk 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy non-neutral presentation of a legal matter, coupled with an overly detailed description of one school year. I've tried discussing this, but no response on user or article talk page, simply a series of back and forth reversions. Seaphoto^Talk 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and non-encyclopedic detail

I have a number of concerns about the longer version of the article:

• First, from an encyclopedic view, too much weight is being given to the 2009 inspection. If we can distill that to one paragraph with footnotes it would be more than sufficient. The school has been around for many years, surely it is not defined by the series of events flowing from this incident, and yet the mass of detail gives a large amount of weight to it. In keeping with Wikipedia neutrality we try to give undue weight to any one incident. Of course, it is a balance and we are not here to whitewash an incident either.
• Second, there are a lot of subjective observations used in the writings; "worryingly", "surprisingly","staggering" rarely have a place in a dispassionate, neutral article, which is the goal of Wikipedia.
• Third, the latter half of the article with it's overly detailed accounting of the 2010 reads like a school newsletter for parents. I am not sure that any of this material belongs in an international encyclopedia. By way of contrast, take a look at King's College School, although the description of sports is arguably too detailed there as well.

I look forward to editor's opinions on these matters. Seaphoto^Talk 23:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I add my voice to Seaphoto's ? Seaphoto's minimal version of the page is balanced and acceptable.

However, kitty is endlessly reverting it to a long and unduly detailed listing of her case against the school. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, it just has no place in an online encyclopedia.ClassicsDoS (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The new version is briefer, but no real improvement. It still contains opionated phrases like "highly damaging", "total disregard", etc. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, if the School was as bad as kitty says, no parent would send their child there. In fact, the report that kitty alludes to begins by stating that the School is a happy place. It is questionable whether any of kitty's material belongs in an encyclopedia, but -- if it does -- one or two sentences would be ample.

Incidentally, I have no axe to grind, and am not connected with the School. But, I do take exception to users venting their own particular grievances on wikipedia. Wikipedia would be unreadable if everyone venting their frustrations and anger on it

I have reverted the new version back to Seaphotos ClassicsDoS (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've also reverted back to Seaphoto's version. These events have received national coverage so it would seem they probably do need to be in the article - but it's important that their inclusion be proportional to the total history of the school. An article that is more than two thirds about a single incident, as the version I reverted was, is horribly unbalanced when you consider the total length of the school's existence (which I see is minimally 40 years or so. I am not familiar with this particular school at all). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV additions

I've reverted back to the version that had consensus back in April. The version I reverted contained unsourced statements (the apology from the Provost to a particular family, the contents of the letter written by the Provost to parents, three pages of problems) and had a slanted feel eg. calling the letter "highly misleading", giving the name of the TES article title in the article text. I believe it probable that there were 3 pages of problems and that a certain family did receive an apology, the problem is that these things aren't recorded in the press. You're clearly upset with the school and the way they handled this but Wikipedia isn't the place for discussing the shortcomings of the school's management. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

The facts that are set out in the entry on King's College School have been independently verified and are based on documents that I have seen and have satisfied myself as to accuracy. This may reflect shortcomings that people don't like to read about, but prospective parents should be aware that the school has done everything possible to hide its failings. The headmaster has damaged the school and brought disgrace on an institution. If parents knew what happened at the school and the way in which governors have tried to airbrush history, they would look at the school very differently. Kitty

Thanks for responding, Kitty. There are two issues here. Firstly, the documents that you have seen and verified. I believe that you have indeed seen and verified these documents. The problem is that this is original research, which is against policy. Facts not included in published reliable sources are a big no-no, however real they are. This brings me on to the second problem. You appear to be trying to use the article to warn other parents of problems at the school. While I understand where you're coming from advocacy is also against policy. I think that you would do better to start a website or a blog that explains everything that has happened. That way you could put in as much depth and explanation as you want, give everybody the complete picture. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A more detailed explanation

Let me be more specific about the wording with which I have issues:
"In November 2009, the Provost wrote a highly misleading letter to all parents claiming that the unannounced inspection was due to a change in inspection regulations and that a few deficiencies were found. In fact, over three pages of failings were found. Furthermore, there have been no changes in inspection regime to allow unannounced, emergency inspections. The Department of Education, through the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) have always had the right to make unannounced inspections at schools where there is good reason for concern. "

1. "highly misleading letter" - I have a problem with the term "highly misleading". Highly misleading according to who? If Ofsted found the letter "highly misleading" we need to find a reference and then specify that, in Ofsted's opinion, the letter was "highly misleading". Without this it's just the opinion of an editor here which is to be avoided per WP:NPOV.

2. The contents of the letter. - We only have a reference for the "some deficiences"(the Cambridge City News reference), we don't have one for the school claiming this was due to changes in inspection regulations. Without a reference in a reliable source we shouldn't include this.

3. "In fact, over three pages of failings were found." - Is this in a reliable source? Or are we just going with what Kitty saw? If the latter then it can't stay. That's a failure of WP:OR.

4. Inspection regimes of the ISI - If we remove the inspection regulation changes statement this no longer needs to be included.

"The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that the inspection had found serious issues requiring correction, specifically in the recruitment of staff, and that the Inspection "described its anti-bullying, child protection and discipline policies as "inadequate in various areas". In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else. The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews. The headmaster and the governors were criticized by the inspectors for not being sufficiently diligent. "

5. "The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that" - I'd like the TES article title removed from the text. I would prefer for us to convert the citation format of all the newspaper references into {{cite news}} format which displays like this:

Stephen Exley (19 November 2010). "Choirboys' school tried to 'conceal' protection lapses". Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 4 July 2011.

That will give the readers more information up front and will provide the name of the article title on the page in a neutral manner. I am happy to do the conversion if everyone agrees.

6. "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else." - This statement is a little too negative for my liking, I'd prefer something like "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without passing on these duties to a current member of staff." We're not here to pass judgement on what that teacher should have done which we currently do by implication by using the verb "bothering".

7. "The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews." - Based on what's in the TES article I'm happy with this but we need to put the citation at the end of the sentence. These are serious statements and our readers need to be able to verify them for themselves. Currently they can't because the reference we're giving them is to the Cambridge newspaper.

8. The section on the Provost's subsequent actions and apology to a particular set of parents. I believe these happened but we do not have sources for them happening. Without sources this paragraph shouldn't be here. It's unverifiable.

9. "Having been given six months to put its house in order," - Do we have a reference for the six month claim?

Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "A more detailed explanation"

1. "highly misleading letter" - I have a problem with the term "highly misleading". Highly misleading according to who? If Ofsted found the letter "highly misleading" we need to find a reference and then specify that, in Ofsted's opinion, the letter was "highly misleading". Without this it's just the opinion of an editor here which is to be avoided per WP:NPOV.

The Provost has admitted that his letter to all parents of 6 November 2009 was misleading. When you look at the claims made in his letter, it is very apparent how misleading they are. First he claimed that the unannounced inspection was due to a change in inspection process, which it wasn't. I have seen an email from the DCSF thanking the parents for bringing a matter to their attention.

2. The contents of the letter. - We only have a reference for the "some deficiences"(the Cambridge City News reference), we don't have one for the school claiming this was due to changes in inspection regulations. Without a reference in a reliable source we shouldn't include this.

This letter can be provided if you let me know how to load a pdf document.

3. "In fact, over three pages of failings were found." - Is this in a reliable source? Or are we just going with what Kitty saw? If the latter then it can't stay. That's a failure of WP:OR.

The soource of this, a DCFS letter, can be provided if you let me know how to load a pdf document.

4. Inspection regimes of the ISI - If we remove the inspection regulation changes statement this no longer needs to be included.

"The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that the inspection had found serious issues requiring correction, specifically in the recruitment of staff, and that the Inspection "described its anti-bullying, child protection and discipline policies as "inadequate in various areas". In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else. The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews. The headmaster and the governors were criticized by the inspectors for not being sufficiently diligent. "

5. "The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that" - I'd like the TES article title removed from the text. I would prefer for us to convert the citation format of all the newspaper references into {{cite news}} format which displays like this:

Stephen Exley (19 November 2010). "Choirboys' school tried to 'conceal' protection lapses". Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 4 July 2011.

That will give the readers more information up front and will provide the name of the article title on the page in a neutral manner. I am happy to do the conversion if everyone agrees.

I'm happy with this.

6. "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else." - This statement is a little too negative for my liking, I'd prefer something like "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without passing on these duties to a current member of staff." We're not here to pass judgement on what that teacher should have done which we currently do by implication by using the verb "bothering".

We'll that's what happened. It was negligent but not surprising.

7. "The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews." - Based on what's in the TES article I'm happy with this but we need to put the citation at the end of the sentence. These are serious statements and our readers need to be able to verify them for themselves. Currently they can't because the reference we're giving them is to the Cambridge newspaper.

That's fine - please go ahead and make the changes.

8. The section on the Provost's subsequent actions and apology to a particular set of parents. I believe these happened but we do not have sources for them happening. Without sources this paragraph shouldn't be here. It's unverifiable.

I have seen many letters in which the Provost has apologised for the suffering caused to the family. There is a child welfare issue here, as the children who suffered because of the actions of the headmaster, were never told about what happened in order to protect them. If the letter is published, it will reveal their identity. I am happy to provide the letter in confidence to show good faith, but it can't be published.

9. "Having been given six months to put its house in order," - Do we have a reference for the six month claim?

Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is because the failed inspection took place mid September 2009 and the re-inspection took place in Feb/March 2010. The re-inspection is on the King's website.

Thanks, Kitty. Based on your response to 5, I have converted the references into the {{cite news}} format. I've additionally pulled the TES article title out of the text. I've also added the reference to the end of the sentence as I suggested in 7. I'm going to try and skim through the rest just to make sure we've got good references in place for all the other statements too. Would you be happy for me to make the wording change I suggested in 6? I honestly think that the facts alone (the teacher left and didn't pass on the responsbility and the school didn't check up on it) would make any parent stop short. Weighted phraseology really isn't necessary. The facts are damning enough.

The problem that I see with many of the other points I raised is that a lot of the statements that you would prefer to be in the article are based on primary sources. It's normally best to avoid primary sources when writing articles (see WP:PRIMARY). The primary written sources in this case are the November letter, the DCFS letter and the apology letter(s). What the Provost has said (verbally) to you or others that you know is hearsay in this context and definitely can't be added or used to back up whats being added. Note that I'm not accusing you or anyone else of lying, I'm simply saying it isn't verifiable to the average reader. The letters are slightly different. My feeling is (with the possible exception of the one from the DCFS) they do not fall under the "reliably published" section of WP:PRIMARY, which means that they can't be used, but I think I will ask for another opinion from someone more experienced here than I am. I'm going to post at WP:RSN. You (and Tatnall) are welcome to contribute there too. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your additional comments and I appreciate the trouble you have gone to obtain a balance. I would be happy for a independent Wikipedia editor contact the parents who have the source documents so that they can be properly verified. The alternative is for them to be redacted and stored on the webpage. I'm not sure how to do that, so if you can help that would be appreciated. If that overcomes the problem you have raised, that would be excellent. Kitty.