Talk:Lady Eleanor Holles School

Conflict of interest

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this is aimed at me, because of my surname. Heather Hanbury, the headmistress, is my wife, but I have no connection with the school other than hearing tales of derring-do from the chalkface at night, and occasionally attending a concert or theatre production. I am not in any way employed by, affiliated to, or remunerated by the school. My edits were not commissioned or requested by the school or anyone connected with it, least of all my wife. I have less involvement with the school than any current or former pupil, parent, governor, or member of staff. I have carefully read both WP:COI and WP:PSCOI and do not believe there is any COI. In fact, the latter quotes a COI exemption "Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest." so that even if I WAS employed by the school, which I emphatically am not, there would not necessarily be a COI. There would certainly be a COI if the article was about my wife, but it is not. Based on this, I will remove the COI tag after a week or so if there has been no objection, or Justlettersandnumbers could do so, if you agree. Rhanbury (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but if your wife is Headmistress there is definitely a potential COI regardless of your efforts to give a neutral POV Lyndaship (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed his edits since April 25th, & they seem neutral enough. Does anyone ever add much to any school article without some sort of COI or at least personal interest, I wonder? Disclosing his identity is likely to keep him straight - the school is well enough known for any blatent puffery to attract UK meedia interest. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

it appears to me that despite the obvious COI, rhanbury is trying hard to edit neutrally. Well done. Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that rhanbury is attempting to be neutral, however the COI template must remain as per WP:COINOTBIAS Lyndaship (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see how you get that from WP:COINOTBIAS, or anywhere else in the policy! However, I suggest that it remains in place while he continues to expand the article, and is then removed if a consensus here is happy with his edits. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, that is exactly what I proposed on my talk page :-). Rhanbury (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

First line John Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not normal practice to leave these on indefinitely. And don't call me John, if you're going to shout. You're not on a ship now. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the COI tag after a while when my lack of involvement is proven. I have agreed not to touch the article again, and very few words that I wrote remain in it. I deeply regret my involvement as, like a building project gone wrong, what started as a slightly ramshackle but functional cottage has now been replaced by a shed in the ruins of a much larger house. The article is significantly shorter than when I started, and (IMO) less informative and interesting. As stated elsewhere, I am happy to help any neutral editor who would like to build it back up again. Rhanbury (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drm310:, could you please explain your reason for re-applying the COI tag, when after much discussion above and below I am playing it absolutely by the book and making suggestions on the talk page and not touching the main article at all? The COI tag on the main article was removed by Kudpung, one of the co-ordinators of the Wikiproject Schools. Rhanbury (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rhanbury: To be absolutely clear, I did not re-apply the {{COI}} tag. What I did insert is {{COI editnotice}}, a template that only appears on talk pages.

I did not read the complete discussions further down the talk page. I have now, and realize that I made a mistake. I have now removed the template. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of the ISI Inspection Report

This question is not currently relevant as almost all usage of this report has been removed. Kept only for historical record. Rhanbury (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This high quality secondary source is a rich source of information and quotes which I have used in several places. I would welcome feedback on whether I have got the balance right in selection and length of quotes and material. There are whole sections I haven't yet used, including leadership and governance, welfare and health and safety, pastoral care, teaching. Are any of those worth including? Rhanbury (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Page links in named citations

There are two sources I have used multiple times: The 2013 ISI report, and the book "Grace and Integrity". I would like to add page references, especially for the book, but without having to repeat the entire citation every time. Does anyone know how to do this? Rhanbury (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Abandon the stupid citation templates for these - put the sources in a "References" section at the bottom, and just use short references like "ISI, p. 99". Look at any of my articles to see how it works - Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours is a simple, varied example. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Refimprove tag for missing citations

I have removed this as I have addressed all the cn tags and added over a dozen third party citations. I believe this makes the article better referenced than more than half of the school articles on Wikipedia. Rhanbury (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

List of former teachers and pupils

I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion should be, following the deletion of all the former teachers. I think the bar should be lower than WP:BIO which is whether someone deserves their own article. Is there any useful precedent or guidance? See discussion on User talk:DMacks. Rhanbury (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have copied the paragraph from DMacks' talk page here, so anyone who arrives later can see the whole discussion in one place: "Hi, you have deleted all the former teachers because they don't satisfy WP:BIO, but my understanding is that is the criteria for whether someone merits their own article on wikipedia, not whether they deserve a brief mention in the text of another article. I'm concerned that you are setting the bar too high. I'm not particularly attached to the list, which I didn't add, but it is not unlike similar lists on other school pages, and I'd like to agree more appropriate criteria for whether a mention is merited or not. The original section heading did not include "Notable" - you added that. For example, one of the former pupils removed by someone else, Pamela Schwerdt, does not have her own page in Wikipedia, but merited a full length obituary in the Telegraph. Should that be enough?" Rhanbury (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

notable people throughout Wikipedia require an article of their own ‘’first’’. Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ALUMNI is the guideline for school articles, which is in keeping with the WP:NLIST/WP:WTAF basis. Essentially yes, WP:BIO is the bar. They need not have an article, but having a viable article is sufficient, or else giving enough references to demonstrate notability (in the wikipedia meaning) is necessary. Probably best to keep this discussion here (not my user talk) since it is about this article and at least one other editor is participating. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, really it should just be blue links, or redlinks that are clear gaps. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There is very clear guidance on this subject in the School article guidelines, which, lacking a local consensus, should always be followed for school articles. Outside of the head person, we do not mention any staff whatsoever, unless they are notable. Lists of staff are virtually always unencyclopedic. With sourcing, lists of headmasters are encyclopedic. Same for students. We never mention individual students. We never discuss individual achievement by either students or staff. Notable students and staff should generally only be discussed in the context of the notable people's section (irregardless of what it is called, and I might add there is no good reason I can see to use idiosyncratic titles for the notable section(s). If it only includes former students, "Notable alumni" is the preferred title. If staff are included, you can alternatively either lump them together as "Notable people" or have two separate sections, "Notable staff" and "Notable alumni"). One of the reasons this restriction is in the guidelines is to reenforce the notion that the article is about the school, not the people who work there or those who studied there. Also keep in mind that like any encyclopedia article, an article about a school should be constructed from the point of view that we are writing about what others have written about the school, not directly about the school itself. Members of Wikiproject Schools are generally happy to help if you have any problems. The Wikiproject of course does not control the article, but the encyclopedia as a whole does benefit from using similar styling in similar articles, such as schools. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, John from Idegon, that "notable" is sort of tautological and redundant – we don't mention any that aren't, so we don't need to specify that those mentioned are. "People" is a perfectly good section title. On notability, that fearsome dragon Garwood Scott is probably notable by our standards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure Ruth Garwood Scott is notable outside the school. There are only a couple of passing mentions on Google. She is rightly in the list of heads, and I will add a sentence about her, but I don't think she'd warrant an article. Rhanbury (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clear advice and useful links. The justification makes sense. I shall review the section on that basis, and re-title it "Notable Alumnae" as (a) there are no teachers in it now, (b) they are all women, so it isn't alumni, and (c) the word 'notable' whilst implied to experienced editors, may guide casual editors away from just adding people they know of. Rhanbury (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of primary source for curriculum

I have added a short section on this, as suggested by WP:SCH/AG. I have used references to the school prospectus, despite it being a primary source, as where else do you get information like this? WP:Primary says that primary sources may "be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". I think this qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhanbury (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

List of headteachers

John from Idegon, you have deleted the entire section on head teachers, however WP:WPSCH/AG explicitly says "A list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful." Most other schools articles have such a list. If your issue is the lack of referencing, then surely the cn tag would be a more proportionate response? And you say that details are off topic, but surely their notable achievements at the school are very much on topic? I have reinstated the section and added additional citations. Rhanbury (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what you don't do. You are a conflicted editor. If additions you have made are challenged, the last thing you want to do is put them back without first establishing a consensus. That could easily get you topic banned. Can you provide a source for the list? At least a part of it should be easy, as there has been at least one book written about the school. The quote you pulled from the guideline refers to their accomplishments at the school, not their CV. Where they came from, and where they went have nothing to do with the school, nor does who they may be related to. Or their lifespan for that matter. We'll see what others have to say. John from Idegon (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I can see that is a sensible guideline. I must say as an inexperienced editor it is very hard to do anything without contravening some guideline or other, and you wind up getting smacked a lot for unintentional transgressions. Anyway, I'm going try and get it right. The list of heads with their dates in office (apart from the most recent) comes from page 190 of "Grace and Integrity" which I have cited multiple times as the definitive work on the history of the school. I have only used the most recent few rather than the whole list of 30 or so. I have included the citation (without page numbers, per the discussion above, but I could put a full citation if that would help), so I'm not sure what else you require on this aspect? Other secondary sources from up to a century ago would take a lot of finding as they will be offline and non-searchable, and the accuracy of the information is not in dispute so it shouldn't need multiple citations. Also, most of the other schools articles I have looked at, even for very famous schools, don't have any citations for this section, and never a different citation for every line. Regarding the relevance of the description after some entries, I would have thought that the schools and institutions from which a head comes and goes are relevant context to the nature of the school, however I have had a look at some other school articles and few if any include this information so I'm happy to leave it out if that is what it takes to get the section reinstated. I think you are agreeing that the comments about what they did at the school are relevant, so can stay? I don't think lifespan was mentioned? How do we progress now? Is there a way of requesting review from other School-focussed editors? Should we put the section in the sandbox and edit there until it is acceptable? Rhanbury (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for adding a link to this on your talk page. I thought I was being helpful, doing what many others had done, but you seem to have taken it as an attack on your competence, which I certainly did not intend. I thought I had better apologise here as you explicitly asked me not to post on your talk page. Gosh, this is tricky. I'll try to only make each new mistake once. Rhanbury (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rhanbury: Guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE says "a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable." The policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY allows "simple listings ... of ... CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries." The spirit of the guidance WP:WPSCH/AG#OS not only allows but also encourages inclusion of the list of headteachers. Many "featured" and "good" school articles have the headmasters/ principals section, where most of the listed heads are not notable in their own rights (e.g. no wikilink). Insisting that only notable heads may be listed goes against the spirit of the policy, the guidance, and against the current de-facto practice. Hope these references will help. I am presently trying to persuade the Schools Project community to add a clarifying statement about NN headmasters to the guidance. Yymmff (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Yymmff: Yes, indeed! If you scroll down to the bottom of this talk section, you will find that I created a complete list of heads in exactly the way that you suggest, and in the format used in multiple other school articles, ready for copy/paste into the article. I have promised not to touch the page because of my COI (the headmistress is my wife), so I have been hoping that some editor without COI will do this. I would be very grateful if you would! I don't think the list is in any way controversial - it is on public display at the school, and it is not the sort of thing that ever has a secondary source. Rhanbury (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rhanbury: I'd be happy to help. (1) Per WP:COIRESPONSE I'd have to independently check the sources. Your chief source of previous headmistresses seems to be "'Grace and Integrity': A Portrait of The Lady"? It is not online, and not in my local library. After you're all done with the edits to the draft below, can you privately email me the the links to images of relevant pages in that book? (2) I second John from Idegon's recommendation to include all headmistresses. Include from-to years. (3) Make sure that each person on the list has her own reference to a reliable source(s), in case of a book include the specific page number(s) in the book. (4) I also recommend including a literal copy-paste quote field in each citation (each person - a different relevant quote). (5) I highly recommend, following the advise from WP:WPSCH/AG, include "a short description of their achievements" at the school (like the ones you have under "Headmistresses since the move to Hampton" below), and/or a very short reworded (from your cited sources) summation of interesting facts from their biography. Make it approx. 1-3 sentences per person. (6) My golden standard would be an example in Carre's Grammar School#Headmasters. Note that each person has a reference and 2-3 sentences of interesting to the reader info. Also note that their long list is collapsible, but probably your list is not too long to require this feature. Theirs is a table but a simple list of bulleted paragraphs would look better, in my opinion. Yymmff (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yymmff: Thank you! I'm happy with 1-3. I agree with you on item 5, however when I included other information about the previous heads apart from name and date, that information was immediately removed by other editors, despite the guidance you quote (albeit that the info was more about what they did whilst head than their previous biography - see my earlier attempt at a list below). It would be a lot of work to summarise 25 previous heads, even if that information is known (even more if trying to find quotes going back 3 centuries for item 4) and I suspect it would all be immediately reverted by someone, partly for reasons of preferred style, but mainly because the source would inevitably be Grace and Integrity which other editors (especially John from Idegon) feel strongly should not be allowed as a source, because publication was funded by the school. This fact seems to over-ride any consideration of the actual quality of the historical research. I don't have time to go to the metropolitan archives and dig out the original manuscripts of the governors meetings. My suggestion would be that we firstly get just the list in and see if that sticks (it may also be reverted for some reason as yet unknown). Then, a few days later, add a little more information about one or two of the recent heads (which can be independently sourced), then if that sticks, some information on earlier heads from Grace and integrity. If that all sticks, I'll complete the set (with less or no information for the earliest heads). How does that sound as an approach? I confess that even I am a bit worried that 25 heads * say 3 lines each would be 75 lines and make up by far the largest part of the article which seems inappropriate in terms of balance. Rhanbury (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rhanbury: If you choose don't do #5 (I'm OK - it's your call), then #4 is even more important because this will allow the readers to learn something interesting about each head teacher if not from the article text then at least from the direct quote in the notes/references section. Go ahead, make the draft! Yymmff (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I have created below a stripped down list with just the names, and almost all other information removed, per many other school articles. I have put the reference in the header as it is the source for all but one of the dates, and other citations in line. Could some kind editor please copy/paste into the article, changing the subheading to a heading, if this is now acceptable?

Headmistresses since the move to Hampton

In chronological order, with dates in office.

• Nora Nickalls 1915–1944, supervised the move to Hampton. The assembly hall is named after her.
• Mary Richards 1944–1949.
• Ruth Garwood Scott 1949–1974, introduced the phrase 'Grace and Integrity' into the school's aims.
• Margaret Smalley 1974–1981.
• Elizabeth Candy 1981–2004
• Gillian Low 2004–2014, re-introduced the house system.
• Heather Hanbury 2014–Present.

References

• When you make an edit request, please make it in the form "replace x at y with the above" with your properly formatted references in place. Save your arguments for any discussion that may ensue. Create a separate section for each request, and it's best to work one issue through before starting on others. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Why not list them all, with dates of service? You could include a short introductory sentence ("The following is a list of the school's headmistress:(citation to book)), followed by a bulleted list, with a citation for the last entry the book doesn't cover? No additional copy is needed, the list can easily be formatted in two collums for readability. I see no reason to have any explanatory copy, not any reason to arbitrarily cut any out. John from Idegon (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Isn't that precisely what I have done, above, exactly as you describe, ready to copy/paste pretty much anywhere in the article, other than I have included some notes on their impact at the school, per WP:WPSCH/AG which says "A list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful." If you think those notes are inappropriate for some reason I could remove them. The most likely readers of the article are alumnae, who I believe would find them relevant, but I don't feel strongly about keeping them. Rhanbury (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, should have added that the reason I didn't go further back in time is that the 20+ older names will have no meaning for anyone, especially if there is no description of what they did. Rhanbury (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
      • There doesn't need to be a description of what any of them did, and your contention that the information is of no use to anyone is somewhat laughable. By that logic, a list of British monarchs would have what, three entries, because what happened prior to 1910 is of no interest to anyone. Why does being in the last 108 years make something interesting, and being prior to that make it not interesting? John from Idegon (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
        • It is all about notability. In the case of British Monarchs, they are all by definition notable and have all done things of historical interest. The same might apply, to a lesser extent, to former heads of Eton. In this case, the early mistresses (for many years there was only one at a time) have had no impact on history whatsoever and are only remembered in dusty documents. More recently, the individuals will be remembered by alumnae who (along with parents) are the most likely readers of the article. It just seems odd to me that we set such a high bar for the inclusion of alumnae and other staff (broadly, that they merit a full Wikipedia article in their own right) but then such a low bar for former heads. However, I'm happy to add the full list if you insist. On the description aspect, since none of them merit an article, the guidance in WP:WPSCH/AG about adding a few words seems sensible to me. You have stated that you disagree with it, but not said why. Although on this topic, too, I'm happy to roll over rather than lose the section. Presumably I could add the information into the text of the history section instead? Rhanbury (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have added below a list in the form suggested by @John from Idegon: so you can make your judgement based on the full set of information. The heading levels will need to be adjusted. Even for the older entries, my opinion is that some notes would add interest to the article, for example that the 1735 mistress was the daughter of the 1723 mistress, but I have resisted for now.

Head Mistresses

In chronological order, with date of appointment.

Redcross Street school

• 1710 Mistress Martindale
• 1712 Mistress Garland
• 1713 Mistress Tuliday
• 1722 Mistress Peak
• 1723 Mistress Bargrave
• 1735 Mistress Mary Bargrave
• 1764 Mistress Ann Bland
• 1772 Mistress Dorothy Cotton
• 1779 Mistress Allen
• 1795 Mistress Susanna Simmons
• 1799 Mistress Dorothy Clayton
• 1823 Mistress Charlotte Clayton
• 1848 Miss Sarah Chaff
• 1858 Miss Caroline Hoare
• 1876 Miss Mary Frampton
• 1878 Miss Maria Kavanagh
• 1883 Miss Mary Price
• 1884 Miss Jane Ewens
• 1899 Redcross Street school closed

Mare Street school

• 1878 Miss Julia Maria Ruddle
• 1895 Miss Ada Beatrice Clarke
• 1915 Miss Nora Nickalls
• 1936 Mare Street school closed

Hampton school

• 1944 Miss Mary Richards
• 1949 Miss Ruth Garwood Scott
• 1974 Miss Margaret Smalley
• 1981 Miss Elizabeth Candy
• 2004 Mrs Gillian Low
• 2014 Mrs Heather Hanbury

References

Sub headings in history section

This question is not currently relevant as almost all the history section has been removed. Kept only for historical record. Rhanbury (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, you have removed these. What is your objection to them? Thanks. Rhanbury (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean this edit. The history section is now quite long and I aimed to make it more readable by dividing it into three subsections covering respectively the time in Cripplegate, time in Hackney, and time in Hampton. Could some kind person either reinstate them, or tell me what is wrong with them? Rhanbury (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC) I have temporarily removed the request edit tag here as editor Spintendo subsequently deleted most of the history section, and what remains is too short to need subheadings. See discussion below, and on his/her user talk page. Rhanbury (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Citations for enrollment

John from Idegon, you have rejected my use of the school web site for this, and I dare not now remove the cn tag without your permission (I presume this would count as edit-warring?).

I can offer the The Good Schools guide senior and junior which quote slightly different figures. Would that be acceptable? Rhanbury or how about The GSA member listing or the ISI report from 2013 (although that is now 5 years out of date, the figures haven't changed much) Rhanbury (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Do not make non-specifc edit requests. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Steven (Editor), can you offer any insight on what the best source might be? John from Idegon (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)re-sign due to spelling error in username ping. John from Idegon (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi John, for this school, ISI would be the best as after checking the government website for this school here, the government only reports the school capacity but does mention that ISI is the inspectorate. The 2013 ISI report will have to do until an updated report is available. I believe the next inspection will be next year as after reading the 2013 report, the last inspection was in 2007 which is a six year interval. After checking the FAQ on how often are independent schools inspected, it says "Independent schools that fall within ISI's remit are normally inspected at an interval of three to six years." Hope this helps, Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There was an ISI compliance report in 2017. Would I be permitted to add the figures from that and the reference without being accused of edit-warring? If not, would one of you be kind enough to do so? Thanks. Rhanbury (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Make an edit request. Once again, you are making arguments without providing sources. Steven (Editor) mentioned a 2013 ISI report and even though he's not actively working on this article, he was kind enough to provide a link. And please stop whining. Just state your case, using fewer word and more sources please. You are not being "put upon". You decided to edit this article on which you have a conflict. No one forced you. WP:NOTMANDATORY. Other than not editing the article directly, which you are doing anyway, there is nothing being asked of you that wouldn't be asked of any other editor. John from Idegon (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to the 2017 ISI report. On the wider point, you have won. I have deleted the remainder of the text I wrote based on Grace and Integrity, which presumably even as a conflicted editor I am allowed to do because I wrote it in the first place. What remains is very thin, but has other sources. I will not now touch the article again (except perhaps to revert any unambiguous vandalism). I am happy to assist in any way any non-conflicted editor who would be willing to volunteer to add material to the article. Rhanbury (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of most of the History section, and others

Spintendo, you have deleted most of the history section, which took me several days to research and write, on the grounds of lack of referencing on each statement of fact. As stated elsewhere on this talk page, almost all of the information comes from the book "Grace and Integrity" so I thought it would be more readable if just cited once per paragraph, rather than in every phrase, per WP:REPCITE. However, that was clearly a bad judgement call. You have allowed the reference in other places, so I guess you are happy with the quality of the source? As a conflicted editor I cannot reinsert anything to fix that, as I could have done if you had instead use the cn tag or put something on the talk page. If I were to rebuild the history section here or somewhere, using a page reference for every statement, per the suggestion from Johnbod above, would that satisfy you, and would you then reinstate it? I don't want to put in the hours of effort required only to discover that it wouldn't.

Also, you have removed the section on academic results sourced from best-schools.co.uk. Could you elaborate on the issue here? Is it the nature of the content or the quality of the source? If the latter, what sort of source would you accept for UK school league tables / what is the issue with this source?

Also, you have removed the section on international expansion. I presume the issue here is that you don't consider the GSA source good enough as it is a re-hashed press release from the school? All secondary sources frequently derive their information from primary sources, including press releases, which are probably the source for half of what appears in the Financial Times for example. I can find other sources that don't reproduce the press release, but will have learned about it from the school. Are there any types of source that would satisfy you here? The same is true of most of the facts about the school of course, that are sourced from the school and reproduced in the educational press somewhere.

Also, you have removed the links to the good schools guide entries for the school from the list of external links, but left the Tatler Schools Guide which has similar purposes and style. Why the distinction?

Also, you deleted the note explaining why 1710 is the correct date, also sourced from Grace and integrity the book. I wanted to stop people from keeping reverting the date to 1711 which is incorrectly referenced elsewhere. Would the same solution (page reference) apply here, or is the objection to the type of note? Rhanbury (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Pragmatically, if I have to fix all of the above issues on the talk page, I will basically have re-created the entire article here, which seems unwieldy. Can one of you more experienced editors suggest another approach? Is there, for example, a way of creating a hidden article whose contents could be copied across wholesale once approved (like a staging server in the IT world)? Or would you agree to me re-adding content (not reverting the edits) once there is an agreed approach to the various issues? Rhanbury (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

See also the discussion at user talk:Spintendo#Uncited-info_removal_on_Lady_Eleanor_Holles_School. Rhanbury (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: You have reverted three of my edits, only one of which you address in your comment, the other two are completely unrelated and were just clarifying the structure. What is your reason for those reversions? On the most recent entry, you had stated that you objected to the use of Grace and Integrity for anything laudatory or contentious, but surely the fact that the school gained its name from the endowment set up by Lady Eleanor Holles is neither of those things. If you and others agree that Grace and Integrity cannot be used as a source at all, then nor can any of the other historical sources, so for consistency all of the history using this source should be removed, which I will now do, pending some resolution of this issue. Rhanbury (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Third Millennium publishing

According to their website, TM publishes commissioned books for schools, businesses, etc. As such, the so called definitive work being touted as a source for most of the article has to be discounted as a source for anything laudatory or contentious. I have no problem using it to source a list of school heads (as long as no one produces another source that brings it into contention), but its use beyond that will need to be seriously evaluated. John from Idegon (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That sounds entirely sensible. Parts of the book definitely are laudatory, especially the beginning which is the only bit available online. However, I was deliberately trying to avoid anything laudatory or contentious in the Wikipedia article, and have not used that early section at all! There is certainly one sentence that might fail the first test (where I quote the London University inspection report that described the school as "Excellent") so we could certainly lose that, however I believe that the vast majority of the history section (as it was prior to the removal by Spintendo) was neither of those things. My use of the word 'definitive' was as per the definition at dictionary.com - i.e. "most reliable or complete" in that it is by far the best source we have on the history. I didn't mean to imply that it was beyond challenge. It was however researched at great length by a professional historian who went back to the primary sources such as the original will and in the process debunked a number of myths that have arisen over time about the school. Rhanbury (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And the school itself paid her for it. If it "debunked" something, that cannot be used; for if you are contending that the prior information was somehow "bunk", and she came up with different information, then that is definitively contentious - very simply, that is exactly what "contentious" means. This is exactly why COI editing is discouraged. John from Idegon (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Some examples of debunking: Prior to her work the school's foundation date was often quoted as 1711. This is an error that seems to have arisen in the early 20th century. She uncovered a host of documents from the first 200 years of the schools existence, right back to the original foundation, all of which quote 1710. Another myth was that Lady Eleanor was a Lady in Waiting to Queen Anne. She went through all of the Queen's staff lists and found no mention of LEH, and there are no other known omissions, so put this down as wishful thinking on somebody's part. Are you implying that the date of 1711 must stand, for example, because the book was paid for by the school and all of the original documents would count as primary sources? This doesn't feel like the spirit of Wikipedia, which surely should strive for accuracy when there are disputed facts, not just stick to whatever is reported in the most disconnected source, however misinformed. Rhanbury (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

In fact, that is exactly why I had added a footnote in the original (since deleted by Spintendo) explaining the difference from some sources. Presumably in this case you would not advocate simply using the figure 1711 with no note that this date was contradicted by anyone (including all the recent school literature). How would you suggest handling this in a way that satisfies WP policies, but bears in mind that ultimately WP is intended to give readers accurate information as far as possible? Rhanbury (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I should probably add that the prior sources suffer from the same issues as Grace and Integrity, as well as being of lower quality for other reasons, mainly because they were several generations of oral history. There were recollections from some alumnae of what they had been taught as children many years before, which they may or may not have remembered correctly, and may or may not have been correct in the first place, especially because people tend to over-remember and even enhance the dramatic aspects of the story. There was a sixth form project writing up the recollections of Nora Nickalls, former head mistress, which suffers from the same problems. Elizabeth Hossain's primary sources were the treasurer's account books and 23 volumes, each 700 pages long, of handwritten trustees minutes. She has all the citations, but I don't think these are any use in Wikipedia as they would be primary sources? The guideline at WP:Primary says that primary sources may be used for establishing facts, but many editors seem to disagree with that in practice, and use here would almost certainly require some interpretation which would count as original research. So the danger is that if you get too strict on the use of sources you wind up with no history section at all, which I don't think is in the spirit of Wikipedia. My reading of the various guidelines, is that you need high quality independent secondary sources to establish notability, but that within the article you can use non-independent secondary sources and primary sources of information where no better sources are available. In the guidelines there is great emphasis that the purpose of the rules on independence is to avoid bias, so if we keep that goal in mind, and also bear in mind that the ultimate objective is to produce a readable, interesting, and accurate article, then surely we can make some progress? Rhanbury (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

All material using Grace and Integrity as a source removed, per guidance from John from Idegon, see note under history section above. Rhanbury (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Time to reflect

Hey everyone, this is an extremely notable school and we should be grateful that someone has given their time to improve the article whatever the sources and whatever their initial misunderstandings of COI were - we at Wikipedia are partly to blame by still refusing after all these years to be adequately informative to newly registered users. I have removed the COI tag since the issue has been more than adequately addressed in the thread(s) above.
If anyone wants to compare with other UK school articles, please see HCGS (state school) and Malvern College (independent) - both GAs.

Let's not end by putting people off contributing by giving them a hostile reception. Instead, let's warmly invite Mr Hanbury to take some photos of the school to illustrate the article and upload them to Commons as his own work.Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) (coordinator, WikiProject Schools)

Agreed. There has been more than a touch of humbug about this, and especially some of the removals should be revisited. Agree that some photos would be good. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung and Johnbod for your kind words and support. They are very much appreciated. I have indeed been very downhearted by the whole experience and feel that I have let everybody down by playing the politics and personalities badly. (by everybody I mean the community of likely readers of the article). I'm sure there is an approach which can result in a GA based on the best sources we have, even if they are not perfect, and I'm sorry I was not able to find it. In terms of photos, the school is now on summer holidays, and even in the Autumn I am only ever there in the evenings occasionally. However, I can probably persuade a member of staff to take some photos and upload them. I presume / hope that COI doesn't matter for photos, as they can't really be subject to bias? Rhanbury (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, though after this, who knows. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rhanbury, There would be absolutely no concerns of COI. Nothing special is required, just some shots of the exterior. You can take the photos yourself. They will be accepted at our sister project Commons where they should preferably be uploaded Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Creation of 'long draft' sub page

I have created this page, populated with the longer version of the history, and some other sections, as they were prior to the major deletions by Spintendo on 5th July 2018 (disputed by myself, DMacks and others) so that all the material does not get lost, buried deep in the edit history. I hope that this can be used as the starting point for agreeing a new version that can replace the thin remnants that currently remain in the main article. Rhanbury (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that if you want to reference previous versions of the page that you use diffs rather than copying most of the article. See WP:D&L for how to do this (or WP:CDLG if you need more advanced diffs). Meters (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Because I'm a conflicted editor and therefore can't touch the main article, my idea is to use the sub page as a workspace away from the public eye to work up the history (and to a lesser extent other sections) in co-operation with knowledgeable but conflicted parties such as the school archivist, adding the best citations / references we can find, until it is in a state where a non-conflicted editor would be happy to copy over a whole section into the main article. It would be almost impossible to request separate updates to the main article sentence by sentence.Rhanbury (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of primary sources in school histories

kudpung quotes Malvern College and Hanley Castle High School as Good Articles, which I agree they are. The Malvern College article makes extensive use of primary sources such as the schools web site (multiple citations), press releases, and school magazines, all of which have been rejected in edits for this article on LEH. In addition to citing the school website, the HCHS article references some original historical documents, such as the parish registers, which have implicitly (although not admittedly explicitly in the discussion above) been discouraged here. So it seems that different standards are being applied by different editors, which is hardly surprising, and certainly points up the need for clearer guidelines, per the comments from ClemRutter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#talk:Lady_Eleanor_Holles_School. If we can agree the judicious use of primary sources, or non-independent secondary sources, for school history, we can make a better fist of the section here. In reality, any newspaper reports, which are the other type of source used for articles, will have obtained history information from a primary source and are highly unlikely to have done any independent verification so insisting on those as the sole source just results in less information, not more independent or more accurate information. Rhanbury (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The main thing to understand is that there are two distinct aspects to sources for Wikipedia articles. There are those that confer notability, which in the cases of HCGS (one of the oldest schools in the country), and MalCol (one of the most prestigious schools in the country) is in no doubt. Sufficient and significant independent sources are provided to demonstrate why these schools are unique in their own way. Then there are sources that support the details in the articles and in these cases, primary sources can be assumed to be reliable if they are verifiable from those sources, such as the schools' own websites, newsletters and prospectuses. Neither of these articles are promotional in any way - one is a state school with direct central government funding and only accepts students from its catchment areas, the other is so prestigious that parents put their children on the waiting list before they are born (. and I'm sure there would be a source for that too if it were important enough to mention in the article - and it isn't). Oh, and yes, I have a COI: I was born and grew up in the Malvern area nearly 70 years ago. On one visit back to Europe, I spent several days rummaging through old papers in the attics of the mediaeval buildings to find documents to support the article that the school itself did not know existed, as well as visiting the county and ecclesiastical archives. I also wrote and/or expanded all the articles in Category:Malvern, Worcestershire, including most of the schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That is good guidance kudpung. A specific question: some of the primary sources for LEH only exist in paper form, and are not referenced in any catalogue. I'm thinking particularly of a letter from an alumna and the programme for the 300th anniversary celebrations, which only exist in the school archives, and the minutes of governors' meetings which only exist in the metropolitan archives. These can be referenced by description, but it would be hard for anyone to check them, so can they be used? Could they be linked to a scan or photograph of the relevant item uploaded to wikimedia commons? I have had a bit of a look around and not come across any relevant examples so far.Rhanbury (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Rhanbury, It depends whether the information you wish to add is relevant and needs to be included. Good articles are not necessarily long and padding is not a good idea. There is a common misconception that once established as notable, an article is free to contain anything the contributors like as long as it can be somehow sourced - look at the rambling mess of Nottingham High School which breaks nearly every rule in the WP:WPSCH/AG book - especially the photos of alumni. That said, I'm not around much on Wikipedia these days and don't have time to get involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was an important sentence on the history that was best referenced to the minutes of the governors or trustees meetings...?Rhanbury (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of school composition It seems that the school numbers are conflated with those of its Chinese satellite school: https://www.leh-foshan.cn/home - without the Foshan pupils the majority are not of South-East Asian origin, but a typical West London mixture of ethnicities, including South Asian and East Asian but also with a majority of ethnically European. Should this be adjusted? According to the most recent ISA Inspection there are 981 pupils on roll, of which 192 are Junior School, 608 are Senior School, with 181 in the Sixth Form. ( ) I haven't edited the page beyond a minor typo because I am not confident with the techniques (and am a former member of the teaching staff, 1982-1994) but I think it would be good if somebody who knows what they are doing were to correct this. 86.140.33.68 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Gill Othen 86.140.33.68 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

References