Talk:Greenfields School

Scientology connection

I have removed the scientology link from the article, as although study technology was written by LRH, the founder of Scientology, study tech was created much earlier than scientology was. Some of the teachers there are scientologists, but it's a rule within the school not to discuss scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartinboy (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

LeeGellie (talk · contribs) has identified himself as the "Public Servicing Director" of the Greenfields School (see my talk page). As such, the recent spate of POV entries made by him may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

COI has been resolved as all such edits were also identified to be copyright violations, and have been reverted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources listed in AfD

Thanks to JJL (talk · contribs) for doing the legwork, see some additional sources for the article, mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfields School. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Listed as "Scientology"

I don't want to edit, as I went to the school, and thus conflict of interest, but this article is inaccurate- (Also, to mention, I am not a scientologist and have never been one.)

The School is neither formally or informally scientologist, in fact, the school does everything is can to avoid being seen as such - discussing scientology is banned on school grounds, and officially the school is repeatedly said to have no religion. While many teachers and some students are scientologists, it is not taught or mentioned, ever. Can someone not connected to the school edit it to that effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.62.188 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence of vandalism (as claimed in a recently-deleted posting here at the Help Desk). I do see well-referenced content being removed from the article in an attempt at whitewashing. The Evening Standard, the New York Daily News and the Daily Mirror qualify as independent sources. The Evening Standard article says, in its ninth paragraph, "Greenfields, a small independent school perched on the corner of the Ashdown Forest, where some of the future leaders of Scientology are being educated." Maproom (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of detail about significant aspect of school

It has been observed that on a number of occasions, an assertion and citations have been removed from the opening of his article. Namely:

- https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/as-katie-holmes-bars-suri-from-sea-org-the-sussex-school-whose-pupils-vanish-at-16-to-join-scientology-s-secret-elite-7935866.html

This article states "Greenfields, a small independent school perched on the corner of the Ashdown Forest, where some of the future leaders of Scientology are being educated"

- https://www.nydailynews.com/2012/07/11/boarding-school-in-england-funnels-students-into-scientologys-most-secretive-sect/

This article, by Reuters, states "the schools that prepare children for a life in the controversial religious group, including one boarding school in England that has reportedly funneled dozens of students into Scientology’s most secretive and hard-core unit"

- https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scientology-school-gets-200k-taxpayer-30093706

This article states "Greenfields, which is close to the Church of Scientology’s UK HQ in West Sussex, uses founder and science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard’s teaching methods in classes."

User Chartinboy has claimed the articles do not stand-up the assertion "[The school is] claimed to educate future leaders of Scientology".

User Chartinboy has removed this assertion, and two citations, and claimed "Sources do not support this revision, please don't revert without a supporting source", additionally "Please don't revert war without providing additional sources".

As I see it, and read in plain English, the Evening Standard and Reuters (published by NYDailyNews) articles clearly assert this.

I consider this is an act of vandalism. I seek some clarification:

1. Is Chartinboy connected to the School given his knowledge of the internal operations of the School as stated in this revision of this Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=429548061

2. How are the statements "some of the future leaders of Scientology are being educated" and "the schools that prepare children for a life in the controversial religious group, including one boarding school in England that has reportedly funneled dozens of students into Scientology’s most secretive and hard-core unit" not relevant to the assertion "[The school is] claimed to educate future leaders of Scientology"?

I await your response.

cc: Michael_D._Turnbull

revisions removing these citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=1229567368

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=1229567824

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=1230754890

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=1230754926

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=1230759633

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=1230759670 Nofoolie (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nofoolie - happy to discuss this. My aim isn't to vandalise as you claimed, but I don't feel the sources you've listed are sufficient.

The Standard article is, for one, gossip, but also more crucially backs up almost all the claims it makes with (anonymous) sources, but the claim you've quoted is unsubstantiated by those interviewed.

The Reuters/NYDaily article was not available to read in the UK so could not check the source, but what you've quoted from that article doesn't back up your claim that the school is used to train future leaders of Scientology, it simply referenced that students are "reportedly" funnelled.

The Mirror article just states that the two are geographically close together, which...is true, but somewhat irrelevant to the claim you're making here?

I'm not arguing the case that there's a connection between the two, I'm specifically refuting the claim you're making that these sources back up the line you wrote in the leading paragraph of the article. I can find no evidence online of any public leaders of scientology being funnelled from Greenfields School. If there isn't proof of this happening, it shouldn't be claimed on Wikipedia. Chartinboy (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chartinboy can you clarify your relationship with the school in the context of this edit you made to this page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=429548061 Nofoolie (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with it, but gladly? I removed that connection because the school are non-denominational and secular. The "religion" at the school is not scientology, although many who go there are. As it's what you seem to be getting at, I'm not and have never been a scientologist or affiliated with scientology, and have no interest in defending it. I do have an issue with false claims being made about a school without being properly backed up.

I made that edit 13 years ago, so it hardly feels relevant to this discussion, it feels more like an attempt to discredit me rather than actually back up the claim you were trying to make? Chartinboy (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chartinboy my query, stated in my original post, was seeking clarification to your relationship to the school, and why you were in a position to state internal policies of the school. Please respond. Nofoolie (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

They state on their website in several places that they're non-denominational. I'm very sorry if my phrasing from 13 years ago wasn't up to snuff, but it still isn't relevant to this discussion.

@Michael_D._Turnbull this feels like the conversation is going nowhere, I'm not sure what to do here. It feels poised on the edge of personal attacks/implications, rather than actually providing relevant sources for the claim @Nofoolie made in their edit. Chartinboy (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chartinboy I am seeking clarification on your relationship with the school and how you are in a position to state internal policies in the school (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=429548061). I await a response to this query which has gone unanswered. Nofoolie (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, the edit I made 13 years ago, which is still irrelevant to this conversation, was worded poorly. I'm not associated with the school. I have no privileged access to their policies. You can find this information on their website.

This conversation is supposed to be about you substantiating the claims you made in your edits to the lead paragraph. Chartinboy (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chartinboymy question is very simple, and I have still not received an answer.

Can you state your relationship with the school (the subject of the page in question) and how you were in a position to state internal policies of the school (the subject of the page) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenfields_School&diff=prev&oldid=429548061)

Please respond with clarification on

- your relationship with the school (the subject of the page)

- how you were able to state internal policies of the school (the subject of the page)

I am concerned there is a COI here and I am being met with avoidance, which is not good. Please clarify, Nofoolie (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I answered that question in my previous reply. I truly don't know what else to say here.

My relationship with the school - none. I really don't know how else to word this. None.

How I was able to state internal policies - I didn't. This is publicly stated. Should I have used their website as a source? No. I was very new to Wikipedia 13 years ago, but I already said that edit was poorly worded. That doesn't change the fact that I already stated, or that this is supposed to be about you substantiating improperly sourced claims you made in your edits.

@Michael_D._Turnbull I'd really appreciate some guidance here. This entire thread is completely off the rails and I can't see how this article will be improved by continuing this line of questioning. Chartinboy (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This article has this year had the same edits made at the same time as an employee of the school made edits. The same events were repeated recently. And again the same changes were made by yourself.

A simple request was made to you to provide clarification which you refused.

It is considered necessary for those for which a Conflict Of Interest is present with a given page to not edit that page. That you have conjured up harassment in response to this query is odd and unnatural.

If you have a Conflict of Interest with this page you should declare it and cease making edits. Nofoolie (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And I have told you, repeatedly, that I am not associated with the subject of the article. You have refused to accept this multiple times. That somebody else did is not evidence against myself. For one, check their edits and mine - their edits are blatantly removing large swathes of the article to remove any bad press, my edits are specifically removing some unsubstantiated claims. Chartinboy (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No. The exact same changes.

Additionally you have stated you removed a citation without reading it. Nofoolie (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to see some examples of me making the exact same changes as the person I see in the edits who identified themselves as part of the school? I'm pretty certain they don't exist, because I am not and can't imagine I made the same changes.

I didn't remove a citation without reading it. This is a very frustrating and circular conversation. I removed an unsubstantiated claim from the article. A claim you have continued to fail to substantiate in these many, many replies.

I see no more value in continuing this conversation. This clearly isn't improving the quality of the article and we're going round in circles. Chartinboy (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"The Reuters/NYDaily article was not available to read in the UK so could not check the source,"

Please look at the edits made in recent months. Nofoolie (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is getting a little silly. I couldn't check the source this evening. I feel that you're taking any common shorthand in speech as an admission of guilt.

The only changes I can see that I've made to this article are under my account name. No changes in recent months seem remotely like the changes I made. If you'd like to link the exact one you're referring to I'll gladly confirm as such.

You have continuously dodged the actual point of this whole thread which is supposed to be you substantiating the claims made in your edits. If you have a decent source that backs it up feel free to provide it and I'll have no qualms with it being in the article. I'm not trying to specifically defend the subject of the article, but I do believe Wikipedia should be an accurate and confirmable record. Continued personal accusations will be ignored at this point. Chartinboy (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that your entire edit history is devoted to this page and you know so much about the internals of the school, and you have made the exact same edits that happened around the time an employee of the school meddled on the page. Especially in the light of the history of vandalism on wikipedia at the behest of scientology.

Sorry you feel bullied and persecuted. Nofoolie (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It's...not, though? I've only made a small handful of edits, to this article, a movie, a village, and a different school? And again, the changes I made now and then are very different to those the employee made. You started by linking to my edits but now won't link to the edits that are supposedly identical to those made by the employee despite repeated requests to do so, I have to assume this is another unsubstantiatable claim?

The employee tried to scrub any negative press off the page. I removed a single claim, and not even the most reputationally damaging, as I have to assume source 5 is more harmful than the claim you made. I've even said, repeatedly, that I'd have no issue with that claim remaining on the page, my issue is entirely with the fact that the sources you provided don't back up the claim you made. Chartinboy (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, if I'm reading my edit history correctly, before our little back and forth over this, I'd only ever made one change to this article before (and then a post on the talk page.) The change you linked to from 13 years ago. How on earth does your claim that my entire edit history being devoted to this page gel with that? Chartinboy (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You removed two citations. One you didn't read. You have devoted your wikipedia edits to this subject and it's talk-page over a 13-year period.

I find that .... questionable especially in light of your avoidance and intimacy with internal school-policies. Nofoolie (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made one change to this article before our little back and forth. Since then I made a handful of changes to various unrelated articles. Hardly devoted. Chartinboy (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say 50% is devoted. Nofoolie (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

One change to Greenfields, four changes to unrelated articles. Your percentages are off. Chartinboy (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

They're bang on. I went to a good school that taught maths very well. Nofoolie (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we get off discussions about each other's editing history and start to assume good faith, please? The only issue that matters is the content of the article and the cited sources which can be used by readers to verify that content. In a while, I will provide here a suggestion for wording reflecting the three sources which have been discussed. Note that User:Maproom has already given a third opinion agreeing with Nofoolie that well-referenced content [is] being removed, although he seems inadvertently to have placed that opinion in the old thread above this one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now looked in more detail at the article and its references and it is, frankly, a mess. Current citations #1, #2 and #4 have all suffered from linkrot. The article need to be split into proper sections, with a lead reflecting only the most important summary points. So, I have decided to rewrite it completely: please bear with me as I do that and don't make edits until I report back here to say I've finished. Meanwhile, @Chartinboy you can read the nydailynews article at the Wayback Machine at this URL. It was published on the same day as the Evening Standard piece and conveys essentially the same information. Incidentally, the WP:DAILYMIRROR is a tabloid newspaper but is considered reliable for many items: the source to be used here has a byline for a senior reporter there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have tidied things up to my satisfaction and added a "Press reports" section where I have attempted to cover the material we have been discussing while staying in line with Wikipedia policies on verifiability and neutrality. If anyone feels that major changes are needed, please discuss these here first. The article could do with citations for the "Buildings" section and, preferably, some basic photographs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitewash. Meh. Nofoolie (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nofoolie Please explain that comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It came to light earlier this year that an employee of the school made an edit moments after an account, which was subsequently put under a ban, had removed the same citations. The combined edits removed mention of the SeaOrg in the opening preamble.

As everyone knows, this "organisation" has for decades sought to remove details about it from Wikipedia and I would hope people were wise to that.

Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia Nofoolie (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am. The question now is whether you are satisfied the current version of this article adequately reflects its cited sources. If not, please suggest changes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I would think if mentioning the Montessori preschool, then the SeaOrg should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. That is, from appearances, what some people have wanted removed. Nofoolie (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD has the guidance on content of that part of the article. What "some people" want is hardly relevant. This is an article about a school, so IMO its teaching methods, including Montessori are pertinent, whereas an assertion about its relationship (if any, currently) to SeaOrg is much less so. I suggest we allow time for comment from page watchers including @Chartinboy before making such changes. Meantime, can you improve the article in other ways? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If I were a parent checking on possible schools for my children, I'd be much more concerned about the alleged Sea Org connection than the use of Montessori methods. Maproom (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I think your edits have vastly improved the article.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings to whether SeaOrg is mentioned in the lede or not, my only objection was to the "leaders" line as it felt the sources/references didn't sufficiently back it up. At the same time, I don't agree with @Maproom's reasoning for including SeaOrg; Wikipedia isn't Ofsted and some form of warning to parents is not the purpose of this article. Chartinboy (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The school's purpose is to channel students into the SeaOrg. So. Nofoolie (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)