Talk:Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School

Sherlock Holmes
PLEASE, stop removing this, or at least edit the text to make it more encyclopedic. Have added the link to the external list which I think serves as proof enough. I find it strange how an unknown moderater can remove a section on past events which they were in no way involved with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarvellous dude (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider it dubious, because of your editing record on this article, and the fact that the names in this section have appeared in obviously dubious material before. Even if it is a true and accurate account, it is unencyclopaedic and probably only included out of vanity or a poor attempt at humour. ~ Scribble Monkey 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, all material relating to individual productions should be removed for the same reasons. Swarvellous dude 11:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

democracy
this page should be blanked due to the names on here and the irrelevance of the information. RobTranter 15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

disagree.Its only the talk page, better not to just blank pages, even if they are irrelevant.Reverted.160.216.167.131 12:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

early discussion
Hey dan, it's steve, did you like create this article? lol.Wiibeatsps3 20:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

hey guys who vandalised this page - i added a new section to the article called "criticism of the school" which featured your comments on the school. the article now contains balanced views but still has encyclopeadic content. if you giuys want to put the other stuff somewher on the internet, do it, but wikipedia is an enclyclopedia, not a satirical website. DanCrowter 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)DanCrowter

Thanks dude, just added some genuine info to the page, this is correct - not mindless vandalism. And if u could leave the link to the old revision at the bottom that would be swell. Swarvellous dude 01:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is looking considerably better now, thanks for that. When I get a little bit of time I will try adding some other useful stuff such as a picture of the school, a list of famous(ish) alumini and some other bits and bobs. Hopefully the page will not get vandalised again in the mean time. Please be sensible guys! If you just want to slag the school off then set up a forum on you own webpage. You could even join the school council and find someone sympathetic to join the PTA or governers- do something constructive! This page is a encyclopedia entry and is not an appropriate place to vent frustrations. Eipped 08:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Who was the middle aged science teacher? I'm guessing colverson, he's someone quite likely to do such a thing. :) V. good contibution. BTW i thought your vandalism was quite funny, i just felt that we needed a proper page as well. DanCrowter 10:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever decided to rid this article of the criticism section and the information on prizegivingyou do nothave the right to do that. This article was very balanced and we took care to remain neutral. Removing this section was highly inappropriate as you show complete disregard fotr those of us that have spent a long time working hard to prevent an even view of the school. If you are a teacher or staffer at the school then understand this. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise schools it is an online encyclopedia trying to give balanced views. Lightwhip 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From the above comment "you show complete disregard fotr[sic] those of us that have spent a long time working hard to prevent an even view of the school". Please preview your comment before you post it Lightwhip, you only make yourself look stupid. Besides which you seemed to have missed the point entirely. An encyclopedia is not about stating views, even or otherwise. An encyclopedia is "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically". You are entitled to your view point of course but Wikipedia is not the place for any "Point of View" material no matter how balanced you happen to think it is. Material of the nature "Well I heard an anonymous member of staff say..." belongs in tabloid journalism at best. It certain has no place here. Express this opinions elsewhere please before the page is forced to be fully locked. Eipped 15:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

look Eipped, it is pretty hard to proof read your work in 2seconds before being late for a lesson. Also I was not defending the uncited "well I heard this" arguments, i was saying that removing the entire section was unnecessary. Also, what happened to the neutral point of view policy? Did that just disappear and no one thought to tell me, or are you just nitpicking my choice of words? Lightwhip 08:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

removed unsourced comments
I have removed, hopefully, every piece of "a student said (something annoyed)" line. Unless these are direct quotes from a credible published source they are WP:OR. I have also tagged lines that require citations. If citations are not given, I will remove those lines as well in a week. Considering that the Wikimedia Foundation has run into legal troubles with schools for less unsourced derogatory articles, I encourage people to control themselves and help improve the quality of this article or get a blog where they can rant all they want. This is not the place. - BanyanTree 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much BanyanTree. Your objectivity is welcome. Eipped 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Although some of what is published in this article is original research, it is not in tabloid journalism style. We did not "hear an anonymous teacher" say something, we actually spoke to them, asked if it was alright to publish their comment, and they said "yes, but don't say my name". we did this because they had been moaning that they could not teach properly because so many class members were in exams. as well, this article needs balanced views. we have stated, where necessary, that there is no evidence to back up a certain point etc. also, we can't cite everything, because not everything has been published somewhere. my colleague lightwhip happens to have been to the prizegving, and seen what actually happens. the school does not publish the details of this ceremony. we therefore cannot cite its sources. in addition, we have to quote students, as they have the real picture. we will also quote teachwers, when we have spoken to them. DanCrowter 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. In case you hadn't already heard, Wikipedia is after verifiability, not truth.  Hearsay may be removed on sight.  While users tend to overlook the class schedules and such that get into school articles as it would be an annoying amount of work to keep it out, turning the article into an attack page is way over the line.  If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper outlining your concerns or give testimony to a Board of Education open meeting (or whatever you have) that appears on official minutes? That would certainly be a source that could be used to support a "One student said this about the school '...'".  Reintroduction of the unsourced allegations will be reverted as disruptive edits amounting to vandalism.  If you want to carry out original research and writing, this is the wrong place. - BanyanTree 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the majority of what you said in the above comment, banyantree, User:DanCrowter and I are not trying to attack the school. I really like my school. We are merely trying to create a neutral article for our school. While I am not defending a lot of the removed comments, If you would like details of the prizegiving ceremony to verify our comments leave me an address on my talk page where I can send you a programme of this years ceremony. a school publication should count as a verifiable source right? Lightwhip 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't need the source in my hands as long as you state what it is. Sourcing the ceremony to something like "Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School Prizegiving Ceremony programme, 3 October 2006", either in Footnotes or in parens, is fine.  I use plenty of written sources in articles.  The point is not that it be instantly verifiable, but that someone who wanted to could verify it from some stable and publically available source. An event programme is not the most credible source, but is sufficient if there are not contradicting sources.  The verifiability of much of the information in the article is not at all clear right now.  You note that I did not tag things like date of establishment, verification of which would be trivial, I assume.
 * I would appreciate it if DanCrowter would refrain from removing the cite tags. Given the history of this article, I don't think anyone will fault me if the article is held to a strict standard while we work through this transitional phase. There's still four days before I strip out the uncited sentences.  Thanks, BanyanTree 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could give us a few more days to find decent sources to cite these sentences from. I'm sure there are some, but we have not found them yet! Thanks. DanCrowter 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can wait until the 15th as long as the cite tags stay on. Note that, even if removed, content can always be readded if a supporting source is found, so it's not like it'll be a irrevocable removal. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rantings of S. Dude
Well, this is just stupid. BT, you are being pretentious and picky for no apparent reason. This article is not a groundbreaking scientific research paper - and does not require mediculous sourcing. If a fact is incorrect, it will quickly be removed by the pupils editing this page, as shown by the speedy removal of the vandalism that has been posted earlier. These facts are correct, as any pupil attending the school would testify. The facts you have asked us to clarify are on the whole impossible to clarify, but nevertheless are still encyclopedic content. In fact BT, there are claims in an article originally started by yourself (Babur missile) that the top speed of the Babur missile is 550mph reached by a cruise turbo-fan engine. Although, the source at the bottom of the page clearly states that the method of propulsion is currently unknown. Now this is clearly wrong information and not encyclopedic content since the page content does not even match the source material given. On the other hand, this webpage, which has nothing to do with yourself, has described the runnings and policies of a school - for which there are no 'tech spec' websites avaliable, and therefore no cure-all references. You have interfered with a factual website for no justified reason, without even monitoring pages you do have an interest in. This is hypocritical and pretentious, and you are clearly just attempting to exert your admin power in an unfair and dictatorial manner. If I find myself banned after this, then you will only have proved my point. Swarvellous dude 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm honored that someone actually bothered to look through my contribs, even though it's an article I haven't edited in over a year. And I'm pretentious and picky for the simple reason that I was stupid enough to unprotect a page consisting of unreferenced negative commentary, and was told outright that the contributors intend to actively ignore Verifiability.  Fortunately for all of our sanity, Eipped has upped the stakes by requesting protection to my most cut back version, which is a self-defeating measure if I ever heard of one as I'm now so thoroughly disgusted by almost everyone that I wash my hands of the whole mess.  I do hope that someone bothers to add references to this article so it can be more than hearsay. Please don't act surprised the next time someone comes by and removes the long paragraphs of original research. - BanyanTree 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch.... OK, I was tryig to be nice, but now you seem to be annoyed with all of us. I am currently trying to find sources to cite!  DanCrowter 08:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed that section as the link did not work... lol DanCrowter 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Continued Rantings of S Dude
What the hell? I give up a good half hour of my life to expand the article around the key feature of this music college to be told that this is vandalism... Hmmmm, It would appear that my earlier uncontrolled rantings have gone unnoticed and i must yet again take to my keyboard to defend myself. It would appear that wikipedia is so desparate to avoid criticism from a school that they must cut back articles to the point that they consist of merely the schools name. Comparing the Blue Coat school to other schools in the city on wikipedia immediatly shows an imbalance in the amount of information avaliable, and this is clearly discrimination by wikipedia against the school, since it is selectivly removing information about one school whilst the others remain unchecked. Again this is hypocritical since the entire point of this move was to remove any discrimination against the school. My section on the Blue Coat Choir is 100% factual, and as a long serving member of the choir it is an insult to have such facts dismissed as pure vandalsim. I feel that an apology is in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swarvellous dude (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Kudos on the information about the choir. I thought that it was some really good stuff. Maybe just add a few links to references on the web to the choir. They must be there somewhere. I hope things will settle down now, I don't have the time or the effor for an edit war. I still feel the information on acceleration is vastly disproportionate. How about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/04/school_tables/secondary_schools/html/331_4800.stm which gives stats on A to C and link to the ofstead inspection. They can hardly be called school propoganda and, like or not, is some of the first bits of information people would want to know. Eipped 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chill out everybody
I get the feeling that this is fast turning into an edit war, which no-one wants. I Propose that no one edits the actual article for 14 days. Talk about changes by all means buti think it best that no-one edits the article for a while so we can all chill out. Message me to tell me what you think. Lightwhip 12:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I just point out that renaming the article "coventry blue coat church of england school" is actually incorrect since the school's official title is "the coventry blue coat church of england school". Could someone please rectify this, or at least change it to "coventry blue coat church of england school, the" 84.68.0.38 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with adding the "The", also as this school is now a music college, the name needs to be updated to, "The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School and Music College" --Seanelvidge 11:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in agreement with Mr. Elvidge, I also propose that since the school also has one of the largest 6th form centers in the city and is the only cross of nails school in the country, the title should be expanded to "The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School, Music College, and Post-Sixteen Centre - A cross of nails school"

The title is fine now, at least I think so. we could make the music college page a redirect, so that if anyone types the full title they get to this one we could also have the full name in the article. How about a vote, bteween having "Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School" and "Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School and Music College". I vote to keep the current title.DanCrowter 17:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote keep the current title. Lightwhip 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Timbrell
Just a minor correction - Stephen Timbrell was headmaster from 1999, not 2001. The Other Village Idiot (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One school or two
The article states "The school was founded in 1714 ...". It then states in the same paragraph "A new school was opened on the present site in 1964 ...". So, it seems that the article is about two schools with the same name. If this is the case, when did the first school close? Coyets (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The old school closed because of a lack of space and the age of the old site making it hard to teach, so they moved to the new Terry Road site. I can't find a source to confirm this but I know this to be true. - certifiednig (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coventry Blue Coat Church of England 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/20150402114149/http://www.bluecoatschool.com/news/?pid=8&nid=9&storyid=268 to http://www.bluecoatschool.com/news/?pid=8&nid=9&storyid=268
 * Added tag to http://www.bluecoatschool.com/news/?pid=8&nid=9&storyid=263

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Info needs updating
Choir information, especially, needs updating. Quote: "In the summer of 2013 and in 2014 the choir will be taking up the invitation to sing again in Wells Cathedral. Future engagements will also include opportunities to sing live on BBC Radio 4." So, what DID happen?--Brenont (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring of 2018 section removed
This read as complaints by a student and had no sources for the complaints made. I have removed the section and it should only be re-added with some kind of evidence for the claims. Jon Rogers (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring of throughout
Helping on the current Coventry project. Some good edits- but unencyclopedic. I have given it a good shaking and scattered cn tags. It no longer needs close cov tag. I now reassess upwards- and will be delighted to see more changes ClemRutter (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)