Talk:National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth

Untitled

The subject is worthy, but this article is far too promotional! I hope somebody (preferably somebody who knows about the project) rewrites it in a much, much more encyclopedic style. I have listed it for Cleanup today, pointing out that it needs a good soapy NPOV bath. Bishonen 23:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The new section on admissions seems to me far too detailed, in fact quite disproportionate in an encyclopedia article. I'm sorry, Estel, but I'm removing it. If you want to reinsert it, please comment on this page! Meanwhile, your putting in the section shows that you know a lot about the subject, so it would be great if you'd address the concern I raised in listing it for Cleanup (see comment above), by editing the article or on this page or (best) both. I really don't intend to be mean in removing your new section. Bishonen 20:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The addition regarding Admissions was as part of me re-working it with regards to the NPOV - adding some more detail into the article. However, at the time that I was writing that article, I was unable to continue and work on the remainder of it. Though perhaps it was pre-emptive to post just that one section, I would be willing to try and and some detail to other sections as well as re-write it to however would be best.

However, I am not too sure how to get rid of the NPOV. I know the person that wrote this article, and I feel that the article doesn't have any more than (if any) an inclined POV. It contains no opinions, and does relay the facts (such as they are).

On reflection however, perhaps the article was much too detailed for an encyclopedia. If it is re-inserted, it shall be done so in a considerably cut down form.

Estel 13:07, 13 Sep 2004 (BST) (Not that I'd copy that format ;))

• Thanks, Estel, nice work NPOVing the Student Academy section. Now I look at the entry again, that was probably the section that contained the most of loaded words like "well-rounded" (which do I think express opinions). If you're on it, I'll certainly be happy to leave the article alone, and not remove any more stuff that you may be working on. Did a little copyediting just now, though, oops ... do feel free to revert if you find it unhelpful. I appreciate that you know a lot about the subject, and I know zero. Best regards, Bishonen 16:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV 20 Sept

That's great work, Estel, I don't think it's POV at all now. I've done a little copyediting, but please note that where my sentences are shorter than yours, it's not because I mean to remove any information, it's only because sometimes the information is already implied. E. g. the concept of "research" implies that it's scientific.

Looks like there might have been a word or words missing in "in order that they are better able to provide and education for Gifted and Talented youngsters." Please restore if there was, I can't tell what it was meant to be.

I haven't changed anything to speak of in the last paragraph. I think it needs some language change, but I don't understand it well enough to do it. What does "the professional academy" refer to? (Distinguished from "the Academy".) Didn't you like my "... Aspire will split up into two editions, aimed at student and professional needs respectively"? (I thought it was rather neat. ;-)) Anyway, good work on the NPOV, congratulations. Bishonen 22:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A letter and a response

Hi, again,

Ok, I found the article which was started as National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth and later redirected to National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth. It seems rather good to me, but, of course, I never heard of the Academy before Jimmy Wales forwarded your message to the Wikien-l mailing list. Fred Bauder

Here's your forwarded message again:

----- Forwarded message from Barry Meatyard <Barry.Meatyard at warwick.ac.uk>  :-----

From: "Barry Meatyard" <Barry.Meatyard at warwick.ac.uk>

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:04:35 +0100

To: <jwales at bomis.com>

Subject: Entry in Wikipedia

Dear Mr Wales,

Our attention has recently been drawn to an entry for the National Academy on :'Wikipedia'.

The National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth is an English government :agency and part of the national education system.

Huh? I'd just like to point out that there hasn't been an English government since 1707! -- Arwel 22:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What he means by that is that it was set up for the British Government to cover England - I think Scotland, Walesand Northern Ireland have their own academies. - NAGTY Student Councillor

We are aware that the entry was initiated by a 16 year old Academy student with a less than complete knowledge of the Academy's remit. Subsequently a number of edits have been made by even younger students and we accept that some of these are getting the entry closer to reality. However we would be interested to know the level of editorial control beyond these edits. For example who removed the adverse comment (merely a student's perception) dated 30 Aug? Is this done by Wikipedia staff - and if so how are 1 million plus articles policed?

Wikipedia has no editorial staff other than its volunteer editors. The edit in question was made by an anonymous contributor with an ip address of 62.254.0.16. If you look at a Wikipedia page you will see a link to Recent Changes. If you click on it you will see a listing of the edits that have recently been made. Some of our editors follow these closely and check them. Some, of course, slip though and may remain for a long period of time until they are discovered. If a user creates an account they can designate article as being on their watchlist. These are articles they perhaps worked on or have an interest in. When edits are made, the latest edit will show up on their watchlist and they can check it. Fred Bauder

As to why the comment was removed, we can only go by the comment made at the time, "(Removed harmful comment from inconsiderate summer school member - WikiPedia is not a place to voice your opinions, email NAGTY HQ instead...)". It seems a reasonable edit as the comment adds little information about the school. Fred Bauder

We would be happy to rewrite the entry to enable it to reflect more accurately the remit and contractual obligations of the Academy, which of course would be entirely factual as befits an objective encyclopedia. However we need to be reassured that such objectivity is not compromised by the facility for those who may have a skewed perspective to air it in public.

There is a problem with this idea; we generally discourage users from trying to write autobiographic entries. What you propose is very similar. For example should George W. Bush try to edit his own entry, he would appear very foolish should he be found out. As would WalMart. You would presumably write your account of the Academy from the point of view of the administration. However, provided you don't log on with an identifiable user name and were discrete it might work ok, provided your students, who are already editing the article, did not take issue with your edits. Which they might. Perhaps you could come to agreement with the other editors as to the content of the article should disputes arise. Fred Bauder

Whilst for some entries it may be interesting to see the evolution of an entry, (as a professional botanist I was fascinated by the development of some of the plant focused entries), the fact that potentially damaging and inaccurate comments remain in the 'history' thread is of concern to us as a publicly funded body. You will appreciate that we are not convinced that a collegiate approach to evolving a definition for a government agency of which there may be a variety of subjective impressions is appropriate.

Here those gifts you [the British] gave us [the Americans and through us the rest of the world], free speech, liberty, and the right to comment regarding government operations come into play. For you are a government agency and subject to fair comment. At least you would be in the United States. Fred Bauder

(Through the United States!?!?!? Excuse me, but we gave that to the world directly, with our Empire covering one-quarter of the world at it's zenith! Remind me, which country was it that spearheaded the abolition of slavery - at the cost of about £7trillion in today's money - whilst America were still rampantly profiting from it. Get your facts right.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.19.209 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While it may be a good way to suck up to Barry, the claim that Americans received free speech (or the right to comment on government, or liberty!) as a "gift" from the British is a gross and offensive misrepresentation. The fact that a British governmental agency seeks to control editorial content on Wikipedia suggests that even now the concept of "free speech" is a bit underdeveloped in Britain. - Nunh-huh 22:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect Nunh huh. You are talking bollocks! We have a well developed concept of free speech this side of the pond. One person, acting by his own initiative, does not a repressive state make. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 23:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, without entering into a discussion of who the more "robust" operative "Official Secrets" act<g>, I never said anything about repression. My chief objection was to the characterization of free speech as a "gift" to America: it's not a "gift" if you have to rip it out of the hands of those who would deny it to you. - Nunh-huh 23:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Way off topic, of course, but we didn't invent free speech or liberty. These notions, in their modern form, came from the Enlightenment. We very much owe our political and cultural heritage to the English system of law. Fred's statements were not at all unreasonable, (and quite honestly, the Revolution had a lot more to do with taxes and the ambitions of rich, land-owning Americans than with the pure ideals embodied in the 1st amendment). func(talk) 04:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has claimed "we" invented either: I certainly haven't. What I did was object to the statement that American free speech was a "gift" from the British: it wasn't. - Nunh-huh 05:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see your point. No one gets 'free' anything as a gift. The free world is free because people fought for those freedoms long ago. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 07:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At this stage we are seeking reassurance with respect to the editorial policy of the site and to request whether inaccurate and potentially damaging entries can be removed from the history.

Our editorial policy is that any editor can edit any article so long as they follow Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. We do not ordinarily remove entries from the page history unless they are extremely problematical as it must be done by hand, if I understand the situation, see Wikipedia:Page history. I don't see in the edit history to your article any edit which would cross the threshold which would require its removal from the database by hand. Fred Bauder

I look forward to hearing from you.

Perhaps User:Jimmy Wales will write to you. I hope you find my response useful also.

Fred Bauder Fred Bauder 01:41, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Barry would like us to add that it is the editorial opinion of Wikipedia that the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth could organize a "booze up in a brewery"? All this fuss over such a silly comment! - Nunh-huh 22:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yours,

Barry

Dr. Barry Meatyard

Director of Student Services

National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth

University of Warwick

Coventry

CV4 7AL

UK

Tel: 44 (0) 24 76 574483

----- End forwarded message -----

Here's a suggestion that I made on the mailing list: Personally, I'd recommend to them that they add an external link to their own "about us" page (to reassure them that they'll always have a way to present themselves on their own terms) and to make copious use of the talk: page to explain and attribute any corrections they make to the article itself so that future editors will have a better idea of which information comes from which sources (while also pointing out that talk: pages have different community standards than article text, so that what they write there is pretty much immune from "tampering"). That's still no guarantee that the article will remain in the form that they prefer, but the information they add will hopefully be authoritative enough that it'll be hard to replace with inaccuracies in the future. Other editors will much more easily notice biases creeping back in if there's notes in talk: to work from. I note that there already appears to be an external link to the academy on the page, so that leaves my suggestion to use this talk: page to make notes about percieved flaws in the article. Bryan 03:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That seems like good general advice for such responses. +sj+ 21:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have commented on Dr. Meatyard's concerns in some detail on Fred Bauder's talk page. --Bishonen 11:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Replied to comments on Fred Bauder's talk page as well... Estel 2127, 28/09/2004 (UTC)

Cleanup recommendations

I just copyedited this article. I recommend cleanup in terms of:

• British English - someone who knows British English should go through and standardize (standardise) the spelling throughout. There are some cases that I noticed, but I thought there should be more.
• The speculative information in the lead section about 2008 needs to be updated. To what I could research, IGGY is operational. But I am only the copyeditor - someone who cares should update that.
• The speculative information and announcement of a competition, appearing at the end of the article, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please update it to reflect what happened or remove it entirely.

Thanks! It looks like this article has received a lot of attention from caring editors and stakeholders in the project. I hope you will revisit this work soon. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)