Talk:Bellevue Education

THIS TEXT COPIED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HELP DESK

Threatening tone by editor

The latest edit of the Bellevue Education article,( 08:16, 25 April 2016‎) has the following summary

"Joint venture mention updated for accurate reflection of Trust and moved to rightful place. Blog mention removed as taken from a source that posted unproven and discredited allegations. Anyone who reposts is at risk of implicating themselves as such."

"implicating themselves as such" this is not language I am used to seeing on wikipedia. Also no evidence that the referenced source mentioned was "unproven and discredited" its just asserted. Any views or comments?

I also see that the "blog mention' text has now been removed three times, once without reason given, by an unregistered user, so reinstated by another editer, removed again by a registered user with no profile who has only every edited the Bellevue Education article, and who wrongly described the changes as minor, so i reverted the edit and on this third time by another registered user who who has only ever edited Bellevue Education related material. I have not reverted again, as I would like to hear from the community...Daithidebarra (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article but you might want to look at WP:BLOGSOURCE for a valid reason why a blog source might be removed. Dismas|^(talk) 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Dismas I have now looked at BLOGSOURCE, and it strengthens my view that, as yet, no valid reason has been put forward for that reference to be removed. the blog in question by the way is Sarawak Report look forward to more comments from you all.Daithidebarra (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if someone has confused 1MDB with IMDB, which is well known to Wikipedia editors as an unreliable source? Maproom (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion Maproom, but given the content of the removed passage not a likely topic for IMDB. The reference to 1MDB is not as a source but as a company of which wrongdoing is alleged. I note by the way that Sarawak Reportis taken seriously as a source by the New York Times, I have now come across relevant references from the Sunday Times and the Guardian which after reverting could be incorporated into a re write. When I have the time.Daithidebarra (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, having asked for comments, I now propose to revert the edit in question and we shall see what happens. Daithidebarra (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now reverted the edit, there were some minor technical gliches when I did it the first time,(had to do it manually) so I had to revert my first edit myself and do it again. I now know to use preview in future.... Article could do with some further tidying up.Daithidebarra (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

END OF TEXT COPIED FROM WIKIPEDIA: TALK

Well having done the edit a series of edits folllowed by the same user as before culminating in an edit described thus:

" m Bellevue Education‎; 11:51 . . (-447)‎ . . ‎Wikijan2016 (talk | contribs)‎ (The tree revert wikipedia rule has now been violated by user Daithidebarra and the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information and misuse this information channel for own agenda.)"

Suggestions as to what I should do, as it seems I am being accused of edit warring? It also seems that I am being accused of`' misusing information for my own agenda`' But actually the entry being disputed was not mine in the first place.Daithidebarra (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest

a) sit it out, just answer any questions, the facts of the case really speak for themselves

b) if you're going to edit any other - controversial - topics, consider getting a Wikipedia identity that isn't easy to link to your real identity. It isn't complete protection, but it can help you to relax when people make legal or illegal threats. Hunc (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

An admin has settled the immediate issue. I have reverted to the last good version. Hunc (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Further edits by Wikijan2016

Wikijan2016 has now reverted Hunc's edit. I think the best thing for me to do is to post a notice on Wikijan2016's talk page asking them to come here and discuss their latest edits.

So I have posted on Wikijan2016's talk page as follows:

" Please come to Talk:Bellevue Education and discuss your latest edits of this morning, 5 May 2016. Please note that I am minded to revert these edits. "

Daithidebarra (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As there has been no response from Wikijan2016 I now propose to go ahead and undo the edits by them of 5 May 2016, and will do so shortly. Of course I remain open to discussion both before, and after I take that action. I would also welcome any comments any other editors might have as this now looks like becoming a dispute and I do not have experience of disputes. (Just lucky, I guess...)Daithidebarra (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Having failed to raise a response from Wikijan2016 I have now undone the edits and restored to last best version by HUNC. Daithidebarra (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources other than Sarawak Report

The information relating to apparent issues with the source of funding of Bellevue Education, which seems to be the focus of what Wikijan2016 wants to expunge, was obtained from Sarawak Report. Sarawak Report was asserted by Wikijan2016 to be unreliable, "illegal" and so forth. Other than assertion no evidence for this opinion was given. I have now (today) put in an additional citation link which encompasses a story in the Sunday Times and a request by the NUT for an enquiry into the funding issue to provide additional support for the use of this material.Daithidebarra (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring behaviour by user Daithidebarra

I would like to report that user Daithidebarra has been actively edit warring with myself for edits on the Bellevue Education wikipedia page. It is viewed as threatening and aggressive behaviour by the user, and the language and tone used is leading and with a clear agenda. Whilst I note that the user is mentioning that my behaviour might be construed as aggressive; my sole objective is for the user to understand that wikipedia is meant to be an objective and reliable source of information, and the user's personal political views have no place on this page. I would urge the user to take a step back and understand that posting unproven and salacious allegations based on stolen documents by an unreliable source is not the kind of behaviour I am sure wikipedia would like to encourage - and particularly with a very loaded tone and language clearly highlighting an agenda. It is my belief that using words such as "exposed", and also posting lies about the company; stating that it has grown solely because of one investor of the company who did not become an investor until 2011 (the group was founded in 2004) - is unacceptable behaviour that wikipedia should not support.

I have now officially made a complaint of the user - once through the 3RR rule, now through this page - and I will continue to complain about the user if the behaviour continues, to ensure that wikipedia takes this matter seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As Wikijan2016 has explained that they made a complaint against me of edit warring "once through the 3RR rule." before complaining against me for a second time "now through this page" I think it right to post here what the outcome of that (first) complaint was

Daithidebarra (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"== User:Daithidebarra reported by User:Wikijan2016 (Result: Filer warned) ==

Result: The filer is warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information". There was no 3RR violation by Daithidibarra. Since the filer, Wikijan2016, does 'exhibit a singularity of purpose' and has no edits outside this topic it's possible that a posting at WP:COIN would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive315#User:Daithidebarra_reported_by_User:Wikijan2016_.28Result:_Filer_warned.29

Daithidebarra (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• 3RR report has been archived and is here Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Funding derived from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal

I have again reinstated the allegations and their sources, deleted again by Wikijan2016. I suggest to Wikijan2016 that, before editing again on this subject, you should consider carefully and follow the advice at WP:COI, and you should gain consensus on this talk page for any edits that you may wish to make. If you wish to gain consensus for the deletion of important and well-referenced comments, you will probably need to find arguments more relevant than those you have produced so far. Hunc (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reinstated accurate and objective information of company - complaint against user Hunk

I have reinstated the objective and correct information of the Bellevue Education Group. I would suggest that political views and personal agendas have no place on wikipedia, and this platform should not support such content. I would encourage users Daithidebarra and Hunk to carefully consider this before continuing their edit warring. I absolutely encourage all users to supply information about various topics, provided they are from relevant and reliable sources, and which paint and accurate and true reflection of content - and are not loaded with personal views through words, tone and language. For a group that has been in operation since 2004 without any investors other than its CEO and founder until 2011, it is naturally very inaccurate to state that funding is from some kind of fund in Malaysia that has nothing to do with the group. I trust that the senior administrators of wikipedia will note down the behaviour of these two users, and take applicable action if this personal agenda persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Provocative behaviour by Daithidebarra user

This sentence is highly inaccurate and offensive to an education group with high morals and a passion for education - who has solely grown from hard work and dedication - and should in no way be posted on this page for whichever agenda the editor has in doing so: "The group has grown rapidly, with funding derived largely from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal.[3]". The funding of the company is open and publicly available information, and has been since its beginning in 2004. Wikipedia is meant to be objective, accurate and reliable information. Please could administrators bare this in mind when evaluating the actions of the wikipedia editor Daithidebarra currently edit warring. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Funding content

Content about this was originally added to the article in this dif by User:Wiltingdaffodils, as follows:

• In April 2016, the source of much of the investment funding behind Bellevue was exposed via the release of the Panama Papers.

Then the following happened - that content was:

• removed by an IP editor 86.180.58.96 (their only edit ever)
• added back bu User:Glane23
• removed by User:Wikiupdates2 (their only edit ever)
• added back by User:Daithidebarra
• removed by User:Wikijan2016
• eventually added back by User:Daithidebarra
• added back now with attribution by User:Daithidebarra
• removed again by User:Wikijan2016
• added back by User:Daithidebarra
• removed again by User:Wikijan2016
• added back by User:Hunc
• stuff added about 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal for first time by User:Hunc
• stuff added about further coverage by User:Daithidebarra

And edit warring from there. I mostly just wanted to get from the original addition above, to where are now, below.

From the lead

• The group has grown rapidly, with funding derived largely from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal.

From the body

• In April 2016, the true source of much of the investment funding behind Bellevue was exposed as being the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, by the release of the Panama Papers, as covered by the Sarawak Report. There has also been coverage of this matter in the Sunday Times, and the National Union of Teachers has called for a public enquiry

References

I have read the Sarawak piece and I tracked down the Sunday Times piece. If anyone needs the Sunday Times source, please email me and I will email it to you. my email is my username at gmail.com. I looked for other sources about this. I found Here are three important questions about sources only:

1) Is anyone aware of other reliable sources on this?

2) Do people consider the Sarawak Report to be reliable?

3) User:Daithidebarra, this ref that you added is useless - it is an index page. What is the actual thing you want to cite for NUT calling for an inquiry??

(Not useless now, I think. If you click on that link you will find it now works, which it was not on the 12 May, which I assume was about when you looked Jytdog Rather than break up your text further I will expand on this below.)Daithidebarra (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

4) A note. I am assuming that no one will doubt whether the Sunday Times is reliable.

5 The NUT site here, has a link where you can download a Word document someone there created (link). (That Word doc is posted in html in this blog) On the NUT page where you can download the Word doc, they say: "Guest articles reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect NUT policy." There is no named author for the Word doc. I don't think we should cite it, as the NUT obviously has skin in the game when it comes to discrediting Bellevue and this is some unknown-authored white paper that the NUT doesn't even back up.

Here is an important question about the content

A) The original content added by User:Wiltingdaffodils said this was exposed in the Panama Papers. The Sarawak source we are discussing mentions the Panama Papers only in the first sentence, and then starting in the 3rd paragraph it says simply "Documents acquired by Sarawak Report reveal that..." and this is the language they use subsequently. It ~appears~ that these are other documents, from somewhere else. Do you see what I mean, Wiltingdaffodils? Do other folks see this?

B) About the the content added by Hunc, about the "true source of much of the investment funding behind Bellevue was exposed as being the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal", I am struggling with this too, as the Sarawak source never actually comes out and shows that (which is making me think that Sarawaak is kind of tabloidish and not too reliable, b/c it does claim the money flowed from 1MDB to Bellevue). It shows the investors getting rich off 1MDB, and it shows them investing lots of money after they got rich off 1MDBm but it doesn't say that it is the 1MDB money that actually went in. These guys were rich anyway. So I'm struggling with that part of this.

C) The Sunday Times piece is more careful, and says: "Tarek Obaid, the founder of Anglo-Saudi oil company PetroSaudi, is one of the key investors in Bellevue Education.... " and it noted that Obaid's interest is "held by a British Virgin Islands (BVI) company formed by the law firm Mossack Fonseca." It also says "PetroSaudi has been caught up in a money laundering investigation after a deal with a Malaysian fund called 1MDB. Fund officials are under investigation, but not the oil firm itself." So it links the two things but doesn't take the step of saying that money flowed from 1MDB to Bellevue, like Sarawak does.

I think we should use the Sunday Times as the source, and take their route in our content. And that we shouldn't use the Sarawak Report. Happy to discuss and if we don't agree we can take sources to RSN at let the community weigh in. This doesn't have to get nasty, at all. Please discuss carefully based on the sources and the policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog for the above and for your other actions in this case.

The paper on the NUT website is clearly not usable by us for the reasons that you give.

As you say, the original content added by User:Wiltingdaffodils said this was exposed in the Panama Papers; the Sarawak Report mentions the Panama Papers only in the first sentence, and then starting in the 3rd paragraph it says simply "Documents acquired by Sarawak Report reveal that..." and this is the language they use subsequently. I see this as simply a way to avoid clumsy repetition, rather than being a hint that there are other documents, from somewhere else. Also, if they had acquired and used additional documents, I don't see that this would have any adverse effect on their reliability.

The slightly vague words used to describe funding flows are actually evidence of reliability of the sources that use them. The trouble is that money units, ringgit, dollars, whatever, are all identical. To take a noncontroversial example, I recall being given money by my grandparents with the intention that it should be used to buy books. I did indeed spend that amount and more on books, but that expenditure could be identified as the same money only if I had specifically kept track of it for that purpose. In fact, in the meantime, it had gone into a bank account with other money and become an indistinguishable part of one larger whole. So was it "the same money" that was used to buy the book I happily showed my grandparents? Well, yes, more or less, if the assertion is cautiously worded...

Now, if a bagman transfers stolen money to Account 1, that money will be mixed in with whatever was in Account 1 before, and whatever may come in afterwards. Money then gets transferred to Account 2, again being mixed with other sources of funding either trivial (perhaps $100 needed to establish the account) or large-scale (as you say, some of these guys were rich already and 1MDB isn't the only source of stolen money), and can then be transferred to other accounts where the same thing happens. In other words, it may be possible to say that purchases from Account 2 were "largely funded" by the proceeds of the original theft, and certainly that money flowed in certain directions through various reservoirs, but it is conceptually impossible for anyone, even the people controlling the money, to say that the purchases were (all, entirely) funded by money from the theft.

I suggest that the wording used by both the sources under discussion is appropriate for well-informed and cautious sources. I'd think it reasonable to rely on both of them. Our own wording should of course be appropriately cautious as well.

I hope this helps. Hunc (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment by DaithideBarra

I second Hunc's thanks to jytdog and agree that this doesnt have to "get nasty". However I would have a strong preference that other editors get involved as what has happened is this matter has become rather personalised with Hunc and me getting flac. So there is a lot to be said for third (and fourth and fifth etc) parties getting involved. I also note, with interest, the device of pulling a controversial piece of text to the talk page and seeking to build concenscus that way. If I was doing this over again, I would have done that rather than my last revert, I think.

I have a definite proposal.

How about a new section called "funding controversy". It seems to me very easy to establish that there is one, and the sources cited in the link on the residents association page can all be used in support of that statement. Moreover there is, I have just discovered, a response by BPET to the reports which by virtue of being a response is also an acknowledgement of the existence of a controversy. Looking for a good link for that. So if we agree that such a section should exist, then all we have to do is agree what should be in it.

Moreover I think we can use the NUT statement to help us, as it refers to a number of sources like company accounts which we could use directly. That way we could get an agreed set off facts, and then show NPOV by quoting a balanced account of the interpretations based on these facts by say, the NUT on one side, and BPET on the other.

How does that seem?

Daithidebarra (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. In general it is not good to have separate Controversy sections if the content can be blended. In my view if we use the most reliable sources we can and limit ourselves to what they say things are fine. We can craft that as we go. Since everything in WP starts with sources, sources are what we should address first.

It appears that in Hunc's view, Sarawak is reliable. What is your stance on Sarawak, Daithidebarra? Hunc found the Times to be reliable; do you agree with that?

Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

i agree the Sunday Times to be reliable. Regarding Sarawak Report. It has taken me a while to get back on this, becuase this area is new to me I thought I would do a little bit of ferriting around On the internet) What I have found is that Sarawak report appears to be regarded as reliable by the New York Times, I have also found examples of it being criticised by sources close to the Malaysian Prime Minister who pay it the compliment of bracketing it with the WSJ !. And of course there is a detailed entry on Sarawak Report on Wikipedia. So yes, I think we can regard it as reliable, and defend that decsion if need be. By the way I dont know what RSN isDaithidebarra (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So far so good. Yes, your proposal for a new section on "funding controversy" seems a perfectly reasonable way to address the issue. Indeed, it's likely to be pretty much the only section of the article that is actually notable and a lot of pruning seems a good idea to me. Maybe later. Myself, I have no problem about making the appropriate edits, but I'll quite sympathise if you feel somewhat inhibited.

I presume that the company accounts and so on would be primary sources, which may give us some trouble. Also, I will be slightly surprised if any public company accounts anywhere were to give a simple and convenient trail leading directly to the theft of the century. But, sure, let's look at them. If BE or BPET have actually made any public statement specifically denying that any of their money comes from the 1MDB scandal we should probably at least mention it. If they haven't, I doubt that there's anything in the accounts that would be usable here. Hunc (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

BE have not made any statement that I know of. BPET have in which they say that the scandal nothing to do with them as they are seperate from BE. Will find a link to the statement and add it here.Daithidebarra (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry, edit conflict, if Jytdog doesn't want a separate section I'd happily go along with that. Hunc (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC))

My suggestion of a seperate section was intended to help move things along, if jytdog, who is at present taking the lead on this, objects,/ prefers not then I dont mind. Lets see how it goes. I am slightly concerned tho' that as this process is taking a while I( but I agree with going slow so as to get it right)- and I have not failed to add delays myself- the article remains without the material Wikijan2016 objected to, which feels a bit like rewarding him for kicking up the fuss-- any change of putting a flag on the article to refer people to the discussion here, so they realise there is an issue? By the way I note that Channel 4 news is now giving coverage to the Berhad scandal.Daithidebarra (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

:) no problem. Before we start working on content, we have to come to agreement about the sources to use to generate content and how to treat them. Let's just go slow and work this out. My sense is that we will be going to RSN to get wider input, which is the natural next step. No drama. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

:-) OK, if you feel we really need to go to RSN then we do, but personally I feel that the Sarawak Report and the Sunday Times give us solidly reliable sources and I'd suggest we insert some suitable comment here and then move on to graze in other and less dramatic encyclopedic pastures. Up to you. Hunc (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

At this edit I have done so. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while, and I might in due course consider removing some of the puffery presently in this and related articles. Hunc (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That was actually a super helpful edit, in that we now have content that you clearly would like to see.

What I would like to see is something like this: "The group has grown rapidly, with funding derived largely from Tarek Obaid, the founder of the oil company PetroSaudi, which has been implicated in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal. (ref) Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Josh Boswell for the Sunday Times 10 April 2016 Saudi oil tycoon revealed as investor in schools company (/ref)" can you and D live with that? If not, we can take both to RSN and get community input. Let me know! Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd slightly prefer to use the Sarawak Report as well, or instead, because I suspect that the Sunday Times based its story largely on the Sarawak Report, because the SR is a little clearer in just what it's saying, and because it's not behind a paywall. But yes, I have no problem either way. Hunc (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK just waiting to hear from User:Daithidebarra on this. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok here I am (at last...) I can accept that wording but agree that it would make sense to cite Sarawak Report, and would also be good sense to cite Schools Week also.

regarding the NUT, would it not be reasonable, assuming we can find a good link to write something like. "The NUT in response to this news report has called for an inquiry" and ref their document?Daithidebarra (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Daithi. Over to you Jytdog, I'll probably support any solution you care to come up with. Hunc (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have waited with, I hope, suitable patience, then used Jytdog's wording and reference, and added the Sarawak Report reference as well. I hope this seems reasonable to everyone. Hunc (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

that's fine, i just forgot. Thanks for making the edit. I just moved it to the body, as nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I can see how busy you've been. Hunc (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Link to news item on Whitehall Park Residents Association website

I should probably start by making a disclaimer and say I have nothing to do with this web site. It is the Website for a residents association orgainised for an area of North London where one of the Bellevue Place Free Schools is located, Whitehall Park School. this ref I originally put it is as a ref in response to Wikijan2016's complaint about using Sarawak report. While I did not see any evidence from Wikijan2016 that Sarawak report WAS unreliable, or, illegal, or any of the other things - just assertions- I could see that it might move things along a bit if other references could be found. Also I could see the argument (which seemed to me implicit in what Wikijan2016 was saying in edit comments) that the stuff on funding that some one before me had put could be seen as overly reliant on the Sarawak Report. So I came up with this,this ref which, when I saw it, contained working links within it to the Sunday Times and to the NUT letter as well as Sarawak report. So being in a hurry I added that link, which Wikijan2016 reverted anyway.

I was naturally intrigued to see that on the 12 May Jytdog found the link useless and when I checked so it was, with the item gone. So I emailed the webmaster through the website contact form to ask where it had gone. It turns out that they took it down for several days because they had been contacted by someone from Bellevue who had pointed out an error in it. So they took it down, double checked the entry, took out the error and put it back up with two further references to Schoolsweek and the Guardian added. So its back now, but I presume that it would be wikipedia preferred style to use citations directly if possible. Just so that there cannot be any doubt as to which of several items on that page I am referring here is the text cut and pasted today.

"NUT Questions Bellevue Investment

Bellevue Education have recently been mentioned in investigations concerning investment improprieties, with articles in the Sunday Times and the Sarawak Report. The NUT has since written a letter to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan asking for an enquiry. You can read it here and download the NUT dossier. Whitehall Park School is run and maintained by Bellevue Place Education Trust (BPET), which was established as a joint venture between Bellevue Education and the education consultancy Place Group. There is an informative article on the Schoolsweek website and a mention in The Guardian."

I hope this is helpfulDaithidebarra (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty disturbed by this - that item was not at the top of the list over the past few days when I have checked that site, and suddenly it is now at the top (that is the archived page), with an additional posting date of May 13 added to the original posting date of April 11th and it was captured here on May 8 with yet different dates. That is fishy. In any case this kind of SPS is not useful and we shouldn't use it. I don't want to discuss this anymore as it is hinky.

Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the only possible use for this source is if it leads us to other and reliable sources. Hunc (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly did not mean to spook you Jytdog, merely explain the history as to why I cited it in the first place. And I think what you are telling me, ever so politely, is I ought never to have used it at all. Anyway my overall conclusion was intended to be the same as Hunc's - that it pointed to other sources and it was those other sources that we could use. The resident's association website clearly not in itself reliable in the practical sense that if it has come and gone already, it might come and go again, let alone anything else that could be said against it. However I would comment that what seems to me suspicious or "fishy" is that the webmaster seems to have been responding to representations from people connected with Bellevue, (that is what they told me by email) which at least for a while caused the webmaster to take it down "for errors to be corrected" at exactly the same time as Wikijan2016 was being very active here. But as I dont know the webmaster (or for all I know webmasters) dont feel I can take it further as I felt they were cagey, (and why not? They must have wondered about my "angle".) not much to say about that, and I suppose not relevant to wikipedia. Again, I hope this is helpful and does not provoke further anxiety.Daithidebarra (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly relevant stuff in FT

I saw a story in the FT today (paper copy) relating to the Malaysian Scandal. Here is a link on FT.Com - you may have to register to see it.

[1]

Daithidebarra (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you post a relevant snippet? Hunc (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

list of schools

the following is unsourced. moved here per PRESERVE. Do not restore without finding independent sources, checking against them, and citing them per WP:BURDEN

List of Bellevue Schools

Preparatory Schools

• Brabyns Preparatory School, Cheshire, UK
• Edenhurst Preparatory School, Staffordshire, UK
• Elmhurst School for Boys, London, UK
• Forest Park Preparatory School, Greater Manchester, UK
• Forest Preparatory School, Greater Manchester, UK
• Gateway School, Buckinghamshire, UK
• Norfolk House School, Muswell Hill, London, UK
• Skippers Hill Manor Preparatory School, East Sussex, UK
• Wandsworth Preparatory School, London, UK
• Weston Green School, Surrey, UK

Senior Schools

• Surval Montreux, Montreux, Switzerland
• Ealing Independent College, London, UK

Unclear to me if this belongs here at all; this is stuff for their website and WP is not WP:NOTWEBHOST per WP:PROMO.

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Bellevue Place Education Trust

The edit reverted by citobun for promo and copyvio contaned a new section on Bellevue Education Trust, which had promo in it in my view. However the significant thing is that there is a pre existing seperate entry on Wikipedia for Bellevue Place Education Trust. Is there perhaps an argument for merging the two articles? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithidebarra (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite possible, I imagine that they are legally separate entities, but they are clearly closely related. Hunc (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)