Talk:Hameldon Community College

It seems to me that this article has long since stopped being appropriate to an encyclopedia, and has instead started to reflect content that should be in Wikinews not Wikipedia. I've therefore removed such content: please see WP:NOT#JOURNALISM for an idea of why I've done this. And if anyone wants to write about Hameldon in Wikinews, using this material, please do! Crac4543 (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's odd, Crac4543, how you manage to delete the same information citing a different reason each time somebody wonders why it's not there and inserts it. As far as I can see, you seem determined to cover up relevent facts about the school. I wonder what your vested interest is. I'm not trying to persuade anybody that the school is any worse than it is, or to provoke some sort of action, just to give the broadest spectrum of representation possible. These things have happened. I disagree that information in the news is ephemeral; all of the information in this article has at some point been news. To us outsiders, what has happened at the school is the most important part of how it should be viewed and judged, and if you disagree with that I'll have to concede that I don't understand you at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.21.188 (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've no idea who you are, since you don't sign your posts, but the reason I've reverted several edits that were presumably all by you was, on each occasion, clearly given. The fact that there have been several different reasons suggests, perhaps, that there are several different things you don't understand about Wikipedia. Your comment about 'what has happened at the school' being the most important thing suggests that you have still not read WP:NOT, for instance, or have chosen to ignore it, while your comment about the article lacking 'the broadest spectrum of representation' suggests that you have not, in fact, read all the way through it and noted the material already present on the OFSTED inspection, the resultant Special Measures, and currently falling pupil numbers. You clearly have an axe to grind, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. There are only so many times I can say this. Crac4543 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this article free from bias and personal opinion - see WP:NPOV for guidelines. I know feelings are running high on this topic, but Wikipedia does not run on the same lines as the Burnley Express letters page. Crac4543 08:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

__________

I agree - contributers must be disciplined and not simply rant and rave, as so many people seem to be doing. On the other hand, to gloss over or ignore the collective feelings of the town would be to misrepresent the school... Ridiculous though it may be, the Burnley Express does represent the opinion of the majority, and therefore the common concensus. Let us strive for a happy medium! -Sean, 12:49, 12 Sept 2007.


 * Please see WP:PEACOCK - words like 'sensationally' and 'appalling' are inappropriate. And regardless of the town's feelings, this still does not conform to WP:NPOV: a Wikipedia article is not there to reflect consensus, but to be balanced - this is an important distinction. (Btw, please sign and date Talk page contributions with your username - four tildes (~) does this for you.) I'll do my best to edit the article to reflect the above - please don't be offended, and do keep on contributing! Crac4543 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Duly noted - I revised the use of those colourful words and tried to present everything in dull grey tones. To me everything under the "controversy" heading is now basic fact. I tried my best for a neutral tone, but when the facts themselves are of a negative sort, it's hard to prevent a corresponding semantic field exuding from the whole. -Sean, 11:45, 14 Sept 2007. (I'm not a registered user, so this will have to do.)


 * Still some non-NPOV material in there, though it seems much better now - a shame to think this would make it dull and grey. We need to be careful in tone - the phrase 'Headmistress Broom', for example, feels aggressive rather than neutral - and to make sure that material is verifiable: a lot of what has been reported in the Burnley Express is hearsay, and even though we can provide a link to where the paper printed it, that isn't the same as WP:VERIFY unless the source fact-checks what it prints. The New York Times (famously) does, for example (look at the list of corrections, apologies etc. it prints in each edition); the Burnley Express doesn't. That doesn't mean we can't cite it, I suppose; it just means that it has a lot of content along the lines of 'so and so has expressed concerns that such and such is happening' (which is no good to us), rather than 'such and such has happened' (which would be). I hope this makes sense. Crac4543 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)