Talk:Kesgrave Hall School

Message to 90.205.104.2

Whoever you may be, please leave the section in. It is relevant to know who is the main author is and what he thinks so people reading this page can take a view on in.Codf1977 (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From IndigoJo: Actually, much of the Kesgrave Hall School section of this page isn't written by me anymore although most of the original page was. It also contains accusations about my views on various matters which are totally irrelevant to the history of KHS. What you are doing is "poisoning the well", i.e. filling people's heads with irrelevant information so that they will think badly of someone and not listen to what he says. You all know who I am as I have a personal page; who are you? --IndigoJo (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To IndigoJo : WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DEMANDING TO KNOW WHO I AM OR TO DECIDE WHAT IS IRRELEVANT - LET THE READERS OF THIS ARTICLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES OR ARE YOU SCARED WHAT CONCLUSIONS INFORMED READERS WILL THINK OF YOU !! When you no longer claim on your user page to be the main author, I will edit it to reflect that. The rest as it is true stays. Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not really wish to get involved in this argument, but I do think the two of you should calm down and avoid this turning to an edit war. As I said when Codf1997 first made his/hers edit, I do not think all of it is relevant; but that said IndigoJo, you do say who you are on your User Page (something that is your choice) and I see you have written on your Blog about your time at KHS - I am assuming you agree with that and agree that your blog has caused some controversy. The overriding issue is, not to be blunt, one of  : “Is Mathew Smith, of sufficient standing and notable enough to warrant the entry” I think before either of you edits the main article again, you consult the Biographies of living persons [WP:BLP] policy particularly the section People who are relatively unknown [WP:NPF] and People notable only for one event [WP:BLP1E] and then post your reasons here of what should be in the main section. I hope this helps.Mrodgers2099 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

IndigoJo you are acting as prosecution, judge and jury - like a bully trying to decide for everyone else what is relevant. It should be up to the reader to decide what is important. It should not be up to one individual acting with only self interest in mind.

Here are the reasons why I think the paragraph on Mathew Smith is relevant:

1. On his Blog he freely discusses his time at the school, he makes no secret of the fact he did not enjoy his time there, information he put in the public domain.

2. He has been the subject of press attention for his comments and views, something he courts and enjoys.

3. It is a matter of fact and record that he went to the school and as someone who writes about the school it is relevant to the section on the school.

4. On his Blog and other posts he makes his views known on a number of subjects, again information he put in the public domain.

5. Who is to say that his views may not have been shaped by his time at the school.

6. All the information used in the section is referenced, most of it sourced from either his user page, his Blog or other blog posts he has made.

7. None of the information I have posted is personal as he claimed in his last undo. All of the information is obtained from words he has published. He can't claim a right to privacy when he has put the information in the public domain in the first place.

I will remove the part that says he is the main author of the page (assuming he does the same to his user page), I am willing to listen to IndogoJo or anyone else if they have any constructive recommendations about the paragraph.

Codf1977 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the deafening silence a sign that now I have explained my reasons everyone (or almost everyone) agrees with me? In which case am I free to add the paragraph back without being accused of war editing ?

Codf1977 (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my 17 August message, I don't really want to get involved in this argument, I have made my thoughts clear on the section - I do think that you should wait until IndogoJo has had a chance to have his say, it is not urgent that the section in question is reinstated. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't GET IT, do you Codf1977? This page is about KESGRAVE HALL, the building and the school. I have not posted anything about my experiences at KHS on this page. I have only ever posted them on my blog, and there is no direct link from the page to my blog. If I had posted a rant against the staff or management, let alone the pupils, at Wikipedia then you might have a point, but all I have written is a very factual account of the history of the place. What's to take with a "truck load of salt" - the stuff about who built it, or about the boarding schools on the site in the 19th century, or the USAF's usage of it during WW2, or the fact that there was a Roy Lichtenstein mural on the wall during the KHS years, or that it was a company HQ after KHS shut down? None of this is in the least bit related to my views on how KHS was run or on polygamy or any other Islamic issue.

Furthermore, your accusation that I court media attention is unfounded. The fact is that I flagged up a bad review by Ben White of one book, and that was mentioned by Melanie Phillips in the Spectator who made the ludicrous accusation that there is some sort of unholy alliance of Evangelicals and Islamists against (Phillips's pet cause) Israel. I have never met Ben White or Melanie Phillips. I have also made a few comments on various blogs and have had letters published, but have never had an article published in a newspaper.

If you post your paragraph again, I will delete it again. Let the WP management intervene if necessary. It is a personal attack and has no relevance. --IndigoJo (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well to go being constructive - No it is you that does not "GET IT" :

1. It is not a personal attack on you; all of the information and quotes are from either your work or from other sources on the Internet UNCONNECTED with me . I have just brought them all together in on bit size chunk.

2. It is relevant. If you GOOGLE for "Kesgrave Hall School", 2 out of the top 3 entries are from your blog (the third is this page). So whether you like it or not your blog is now relevant to an article on the School.

All of that a side I am keen to reach a compromise so how about the following -

Former pupils include the Islamist convert and blogger Mathew Smith (also known as Indigo Jo), who has written many times on his blog about his time at the school. His blog, and its consequences have even been referred to in The Spectator. However his views are not shared by all in the Islamic community.

Given that both Mrodgers2099 and IndigoJo have edited this new page since my compromise offer without comment, I take it my compromise is ok and will now added it. Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Codf1977, lack of comment by me should not be taken as meaning anything. I am not totally comfortable with the edit for the reason that I am not sure that Matthew Smith is a notable enough ex-pupil, however I concede that it is not for me to dictate that for others. I do agree your compromise is better than your first attempt. Oh one last point you should at least spell his name correctly. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mrodgers2099 : well then you should reply promptly. As for the typo - it was just that - besides you made one in the above (which I have corrected for you) Codf1977 (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

IndigoJo : Why do you keep deleting the section I add ? - leave it in, if you must change it then edit it, but as far as I can see does not go against any policy I have no idea why you keep deleting it. Codf1977 (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

References

First Headmaster's name

Amongst the changes made by 78.147.137.103 (talk) was changing the name of the first headmaster from Dick Sheppard to Derek Sheppard. Can anyone confirm either way ? Mrodgers2099 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that KHS' first headmaster was Derek and not Dick. A fine old boy, who played for London Welsh and flew Spitfires in the second world war - had trouble with one eye as a result of being shot down over the English Channel and floating at sea for some time before being rescued. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that Mrodgers2099 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Former pupils

Having considered it for a while, I think that a re-wording the Former pupils section for Matthew Smith to something more in keeping with the subject of the page is needed. Something along the lines of:

Former pupils include the Muslim convert, Islamist and blogger Matthew Smith (also known as Indigo Jo), who has written many times on his blog about his time at the school. He has also written and broadcast on his YouTube channel about experiences of editing of the wikipedia entry on the school and building.

Comments please ? Mrodgers2099 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, my wording is just fine, thanks for the input. Codf1977 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on this are that Matthew's religion and comments on polygamy are not directly related to this article on KHS, are not encyclopedic, and to mention them at all might be interpreted by some as seeking to detract from the article by including potentially contentious topics. The section should be cleaned up, and I have tagged it to this effect. It is doubtful whether a section on one former pupil is really of interest, although while there is an article on him I suppose it is valid. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback - I agree, so have edited the section as I poposed. I think my edit addresses the NPOV and Topic question you raised, so have removed the tag, however if you disagree then please feel free to add them back. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome -- as you will see I have further edited the section to maintain a clear focus on the topic of the page. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again - more than happy with your wording, but see Codf1977 has added bits back - I was thinking about putting it back but after looking at Matthew Smith not sure - not keen to have an edit war with him/her. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Clearly wrong, misleading or without attribution

I have removed parts that are clearly wrong, misleading or without attribution that were inserted by boy(s) with a grudge about the school or written by journalists who cant be bothered to check facts. Do not reinsert. Wlmmcf (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Material that you removed was sourced. You have no knowledge who added the material. If you consider that the journalists "cant be bothered to check facts" please take it up with the paper concerned. This is sound content that should remain unless you can find sourced rebuttal. TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

the fast majority was not Wlmmcf (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

this page was created by a old boy Matthew Smith AKA Indigo Jo who is an Islamic convert with a grudge against the school and will say anything to discredit it (have a look at his blog) along with ex-members of staff also with grudges. It is full of errors, they are using it as an attack page. Wlmmcf (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

First, be careful what you say about named living people here, please.

Second, who do you claim that it is attacking? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong

the claim "The school catered for pupils who had been excluded from mainstream schools for disruptive behavior" is wrong, not all were, in fact not even a majority were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlmmcf (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So would "The school partly catered for pupils who had been excluded from mainstream schools for disruptive behaviour" be accurate? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Stating ""The school catered for pupils who had been excluded from mainstream schools for disruptive behaviour" actually doesn't mean or imply that all students were in this category only that it "caters for such students". All you have done so far is remove material from the article. You obviously had a connection with the school so it would help if you carried out research and provided some sources. Have you access to a school prospectus or year book for example?TerriersFan (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)