Talk:Ravenswood School for Girls

Alumnae
Plural of alumna, former student. Are you saying that boys attend the school? And it must be lowercase. See Manual of Style (capital letters). -- Usgnus 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well at first boys went but it later turned into an all girls school it is in the Centenary Bokk

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Head girl speech
Firstly, per WP:SCH/AG and common sense, we do not discuss Non-notable students by name. Second, although the BBC is a good source, the pillar policy on NPOV requires we cover the issue from both sides. Surely the school had an opinion on her opinion. If not, well, it's just some kid's opinion, and not really worthy of inclusion on one of the top 10 most read websites in the world. John from Idegon (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Take care to maintain a neutral point of view when describing a school." That includes noting criticism.  I've no problem with including the schools reply to criticism, but lack of it is not a reason to remove this. Most of the rest of the article reads like a prospectus.  This girl is selected by the school to be the head girl, so it's not just some kid's opinion. Her opinion is significant because of who she is, and because it's got international attention.  It is said that there is a court case which prevents the school from responding.Rathfelder (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You suggested we needed more sources. I found more sources. There seem to be plenty. Your position appears to be that schools should not be criticised on Wikipedia.  Rathfelder (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You "cherry-picked" my argument. Your quote from a guideline does not trump the policy. Let me bullet this for you so perhaps you might have some more clarity on the issues:


 * The girl's name is out. There isn't any compelling argument to be made there. Per policy (WP:BLP1E) and school article guideline (since you quoted it above you must know where to find it). Seriously, you wanna plaster a child's name onto this very popular website over a school speech? She's going to have to get a job someday.


 * The tone of the material you are inserting is entirely negative. There is nothing in it about the school's view of the situation. Your argument that the somewhat promo tone overall in the article justifies that is a red herring. If the article sounds promo, tone it down. Most private school articles do sound a bit promo. I've seen much worse. This is where the pillar policy NPOV comes in and the guidelines for school articles are not on point here.


 * Lastly, and I did not make this argument before, this is a current story and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. You have a couple different articles on her speech and an article on a lawsuit. We generally do not discuss lawsuits until they resolve. And any way you want to spin it, the young lady's speech is one child's opinion of the school she attended. I'm one of the coordinators of Wikiproject Schools and I know of no school article in which we include students opinions of their schools. Opinions are just that and not verifiable. The fact that she said it is, but that lends no credence to her opinion, nor does a stellar academic record or the fact that the school made a decision that they certainly regret now to honor her.


 * Your assertion that discussion must ensue prior to removal of content is false. Once content is challenged by removal, discussion and consensus must occur prior to replacement. There is a BLP violation here. Do not replace the edits you have repeatedly reinserted without consensus. Continuing on the path you are on is going to lead to sanctions for you.


 * And just in case you are not clear, you do not have a consensus for inclusion. As long as the only participants in this discussion are me and you, most likely you won't. I cannot anticipate any argument you could make that would cause me to change my mind. There are several accepted methods to draw more attention to this article, and a couple methods of dispute resolution you can avail yourself of. Please do not continue to edit war. Removing BLP violations is exempt from WP:3RR and my reverts have most assuredly been that. John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether we include the girl's name. But it does appear that there are issues with the management of the Uniting Church in Australia.  This is not the only school affected, and it seems to have continued for several years.  The fact that there is no school article in which we include students opinions of their schools does not seem to be something to be proud of.  There is no policy that the views of those who use organisations services should be excluded, is there?  The article, like most articles about schools, is full of the opinions of the management. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3RR exemptions are only for unambiguous BLP violations. This clearly isn't one, as you now have two people disagreeing that it is.  I would suggest working together on this rather than blindly reverting. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem with this section, to be honest. But in including the section we don't have to actually name the girl, even if her name is in pretty much every news source you find if you search for the school on Google.  That should sort any issues regarding BLP and we don't exclude negative issues from school articles if they are well sourced. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The content doesn't violate the BLP policy in any away. Is it verifable? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Is there NOR? Yes. The incident has been covered by various respected news organisations, hence notable. Now, it's neutrally worded, I don't see how an experienced editor like you can't see that. It doesn't seem to be biased to the student or the school in any way. You've used your flawed understanding of the BLP policy to exempt yourself from the 3RR rule. Not cool, not cool at all. --QEDK ( T ❄  C ) 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, BLP1E applies if the subject here had her own article, which however is not the case. --QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 09:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, NOTNEWS? That has nothing to do with whether the content being added is a plus or minus to the school. It's a current story. As far as NPOV, only the Mail made any attempt at an even story. There is very little journalism in any of the sources. The head girl, whose parent's are suing the school over issues predating the speech is hardly to be considered a reliable source and the so called criticism comes from her and only from her. The Mail made an attempt to at least talk to other students. The other students basically said the best girl was NOT credible. No attempt was made to solicit any opinion from parents of current or past students, there is no indication of negative reports with any regulatory agencies. In short you want to include a highly negative, long paragraph based on the opinion of one girl who quite probably might have a reason to be pissed off. This is ridiculously unbalanced. I don't know what you are basing your assertion of mismanagement on, but that kind of thing requires facts, not just a peed off child's opinion. Never mind that NOTNEWS is good enough reason not to include it. John from Idegon (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are edit-warring against consensus now. In fact, that's 4 reverts in the last 24h.  Please stop.  Also, you removed all the other edits made - which are uncontroversial - as well as removing the contested material. Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've requested full protection for the article and will request WP: DR in the morning. I accept QEDKs chastising over the girl's name and appreciate the one consensus we have reached, to leave her name out. However, negative disputed info should be omitted until a consensus is reached. The original editor has not replied to either of my posts and Ms. Jamieson did not even give me the time to reply before replacing the vontent. She also offered no substantial arguement, simply a vague statement regarding facts not discussed here and ILIKEIT. Consensus is not a vote. It is an agreement. Please make a useful arguement. The sources suck. The edits are not reflecting the quality of the sources, and no supported arguement has been proffered disputing my allegation that this all just represents the opinion of one pissed off child. John from Idegon (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "negative disputed info"? This article only lists the allegations of the student, nothing else. And, you do realise that you'll face a BOOMERANG, right? Also, let's take note of the sources that suck, according to you: Daily Mail, The Independent and BBC News. Seriously? --QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 11:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The controversial info appears to be well-sourced. The sources are quite good. It's the only part of the article that doesn't read like a brochure.  John Nagle (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)