Talk:Kambrya College

Neutrality tag
I have removed the neutrality tag which is wholly unnecessary; the content is fully attributed. Summaries of curriculum always come from school sources - no-one else is likely to have the detailed knowledge - but here the information has been published in an independent work. If an editor doubts the content then rebutting sourced content should be added rather than putting negative tags on the section. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The content is not expressed in a way that neutrally presents the subject. It is basically just a marketing spiel in my opinion, emphasised by the fact that it is the marketing officer of the school, ie, the principal, that stated it. I did not tag the content for not being attributed or reliable. I tagged it because the section is not neutral as is. See Neutral_point_of_view
 * "Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article."
 * Cheers, Ans e ll  23:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless youn get a consensus here please stop degrading a page with an unjustifiable tag. TerriersFan (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We do not neutralize quoted or attributed text. If some guy says "all french canadians are yuccchy", and his having said it is somehow pertinent to the article, it would be incorrect to change his statement to a neutral one.  If we said thet he said "people of french canadian descent are no better or worse than those of any other national origin".  We would be telling a non-truth.  I use this example because it is sometimes easier for people to see the logic of something when a bigger or exaggeraed example is shown.  As well, I am of french canadian descent, so I am sure nobody will accuse me of being racist in the use of that example.


 * So how the heck does that apply here, Jerry? You might ask. Well, I'll tell you.  The text of the section clearly states that this is what the principal had said.  If you suggest that the statements made by the source are factually untrue, exaggerated, or otherwise non-neutral, -- and -- you can provide a source who says something with a different slant, then by all means, add that to the article. But merely to tag the section with a maintenance tag that beckons editors to come change the wording, is clearly not proper, so do please stop. JERRY talk contribs 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The tag was designed to highlight areas where the content is not as neutral as it could be. Merely including a few marketing statements from the principal which just happen to have been published in a book somewhere describing how perfect the school is it not neutral point of view. Neutral wording and attribution does not equal neutrality. Of course we encourage users to change the wording. Wikipedians do not own articcles, and should know that their content is going to be edited without their permission. Ans e ll  22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The administration of Kambrya College seem to have had a history of attempting to own the article. See the contributions of Antipathy1 for evidence. Ans e ll  22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop reinserting the neutrality tag - you have no consensus for this - and it is starting to get close to edit warring. The question of the school owning the article won't arise in future; there are plenty of neutral editors involved to stop that happening. On the substantive point the tag is used when a change to the article is required not just because someone involved with the subject has had a contribution included. If you can find sourced evidence that states that the section is not accurate, or if you can find a balancing opinion then fine; add it. Otherwise it is reasonable to assume it is accurate. Whether the content can fairly be characterised as 'a marketing statement' is a POV but its inclusion in what seems a significant work shows that it will have been evaluated by a third party. In summary, the neutrality tag is used where editorial action is needed; so make a proposal. TerriersFan (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a fickle concept. Referring to the other side as "not having it" is unclear at best. The current paragraph does need changing. It is POV as is. Any other article which relied on the chief executive of the organisation to provide the single source for a marketing paragraph would be questioned. Why is this one not being questioned? Lack of reliable sources to say otherwise isn't a reason for unquestioned inclusion. The neutrality tag is appropriate, however, in the interests of civility I won't put it back again as you seem desperate not to have it on the page. The particular publication is edited, but that doesn't mean it should be used as the sole source for a large section. Ans e ll  04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ive looked through the entire article, found only one slight NPOV issue; School principal, Ian McKenzie Writing has described the curriculum as being constructed around a holistic, world context.[4]. It adds nothing to the article, id think most schools try to have a curriculum like this (esp. intl boarding ones). I think removing it would harm no-one, it adds nothing to the article. Twenty Years 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kambrya College Logo.jpg