Talk:Girton Grammar School

School Uniform - why is this section notable?
New sections have been added which are starting to border on WP:Schoolcruft. In particular, the section describing the school uniform does not appear to be encyclopedic. There are no references, and I cannot imagine any independent source ever covering this. I propose deleting it, and checking the rest of the article for notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that beat me to the punch and deleted this section already.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just decided to be WP:BOLD and remove what I thought breached the guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG. I'm not sure about the remaining controversy, it seemed possibly notable to me, but I wonder what you and any other editors think? Melcous (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a news search, and there was a lot of coverage (only two of which I cited) of that event and its aftermath, especially since it involved the resignation of a board member. So I put it in there, but I don't have strong feelings either way about whether it should stay.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't realised you were the one who included that. I'm happy for it to stay too. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I work at the School. Many students and parents are upset by the inclusion of the "controversies" section so I have removed it. While it may be considered "topically relevant", student well-being is more important than topical relevance. The students and staff involved in these "controversies" are susceptible to unfair judgement and ridicule from people who are unaware of the entire suite of facts regarding these matters which, for legal and moral reasons, we cannot divulge. The mental health of people who have done no wrong, has been affected by this inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.206.3 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversies section
Should this be included? There were three separate "controversies" in the most recent version, all from 2016 and 2017. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. You are correct, I am the person who removed the section and I am an employee at the School. In regard to the Gay Rights matter, the reporting has been inaccurate. The ex-student concerned was openly gay when he was elected school captain in his final year at the school, a year he completed successfully and happily. In recent years we have had two openly gay School Captains who have led the student body with distinction. He was not denied entry into the Cathedral where the Foundation Day celebration was being held. He was denied inclusion in the official party because of the nature of his attire. It was felt that tight leather pants, collarless shirt and bow tie were not appropriate and he was asked to sit with the congregation which he chose not to do. There are other matters of a more sensitive nature at play here also which have to do with the mental health of some people involved. We have deep concerns about this and the other "controversies" being part of our Wikipedia profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.206.3 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
A user that appears to be the school administration does not want the controversies section to be included because:


 * The inclusion of a section entitled “Controversies” in a Wikipedia entry describing a School is inflammatory and harmful to those involved. It provided incomplete and inaccurate commentary on controversial and sensitive matters regarding student behaviour and well-being. Because of this the “Controversies” content was removed. Also, the school considers the naming of students involved in sensitive matters to be inappropriate and potentially harmful. -203.193.206.3 in this edit

I'm not sure whether or not this is the stance that Wikipedia should take about it. The information is partially about the administration who is attempting to have it removed, so it is a COI for them to remove it, but I think that potentially it should be removed, since the information is controversial and - although it has some sources - it is not well sourced.

After discussion on the IRC, power decided (with this edit) that the controversies section should be removed until more discussion happens on the talk pages because it is "disputed material with BLP impact."

Some on the IRC suggested that some of the material (the first section, about gay rights) should be kept, because it is well sourced, but the rest potentially shouldn't be because it isn't well sourced.

Gbear605 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The A 16-year old male student was arrested for dealing drugs to minors, and was subsequently expelled. part has the most BLP concerns. The section on a student refused entry to the event has some as well, but due to the volume of coverage it's "probably" OK.  The classes for female students in order to improve "presentation skills, including how to manage wearing high heels" section doesn't have BLP concerns, but I felt it better to remove the whole section before discussion, rather than just leaving that one. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that, at least as a general rule, articles should normally avoid having controversies sections. One of the problems is that many controversies can be fleeting matters and not notable in the long term. Whilst this school has had some controversies in recent years which have received much media attention at the time I am unsure whether they should be included in the article. I am happy to accept consensus on this but I am not happy to accept COI editing by anyone associated with the school on these or other matters. Yahboo (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)