Talk:South Chadderton School

Reliable sources

Let me just cite a few paragraphs:

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (...) As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. (...) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves."

From Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources

"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. (...) Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links. (...) Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. "

I think this pretty much sums up the reasons of my edits. --Mbimmler (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources is relevant to this article, as it's about a school? The People is a British national tabloid newspaper and the Manchester Evening News is a British regional newspaper. They are also owned by different media groups. Personally, I think they are sufficiently robust references to support the allegation that a teacher produced a diary describing the behaviour at the school. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the first point: This is about a negative comment on a teacher, thus BLP jumps in. If you write in an article about a company that its director is a Nazi, surely you would agree that BLP applies as well? Concerning the second point: Well, I don't know. I don't live in Britain and I am not really able to judge British newspapers. From my first look, I considered it non-reliable. But I'm open to persuasion if other people might want to comment on this. In any case, and this is quite important I think, negative statements must be attributed to the source. That is, you don't write "XY has killed AZ (little footnote)" but "The tabloid The People has alleged that XY killed AZ (little footnote). --Mbimmler (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. The text under discussion doesn't seem to include a negative comment about the teacher, and certainly doesn't identify the teacher, so I still don't understand why BLP would apply. I disagree with your reasoning that because the newspapers reported an unreferenced diary the text should not be included. The text is not repeating the claims made in the diary, it is merely stating that the diary was published and that this caused embarrassment to the school. Two references from established newspapers support that assertion. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The People

The People is a national newspaper and is used as a source on other articles so how is this not a reliable source ? The newspaper article is the source not the diary itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.160.132 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I considered the newspaper non-reputable, not the diary itself. See above. --Mbimmler (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think SMT complained. I've added the MEN source instead. 62.249.253.71 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I consider both the source and the formulation much better than it was. Now, it would be perfect, if it was also attributed directly, but maybe I'm too meticulous here. --Mbimmler (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Chadderton School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418210916/http://www.southchadderton.oldham.sch.uk/ to http://www.southchadderton.oldham.sch.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)