Talk:Sunderland High School

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View)
This page is a perversely written, utterly blatant advert for the school. This article does in no way represent a Neutral Point of View. It has been edited several times, seemingly with a corporate bias; this page represents a school which is fee-paying.

Recent additions and edits to this page;

"The Junior School was the first school in the country to be awarded the prestigious Investors in People Leadership and Management Award."

"...in March 2006 it was one of the first schools in the country to achieve the BECTA ICT Mark."

"Examination results are consistently amongst the best in the area at all levels from Key Stage 1 to A Level (2005 100% pass rate). The Senior School, Junior School and Nursery have all gained national quality awards. The school was highly praised in the 2005 Independent Schools Inspectorate report, notably for its pastoral care and the quality of its extra-curricular provision. There is a very broad (previously: good) range of sports"

(The bold type above denotes words or phrases which have been edited into a previously existing sentence)

In addition, information on controversies of the school has been deleted on more than one occasion. I have therefore added a POV to the top of the page. I would request further discussion on this matter.

Edit: It has come to my attention that an article on another school owned by the United Schools Trust, which owns this school, has been written with seemingly flagrant regard for a Neutral Point of View.

Link: Surbiton High School

Jackeftklang 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The page has been re-edited in the light of the previous objections so that the tone and content are considerably less contentious. In the light of these amendments, which take account of the objections, the NPOV challenge should be withdrawn?

The fact that it is a fee-paying school has no bearing on whether or not the text is neutral. Neither has the fact that there is a challenge to the neutrality of a sister school within the United Church Schools Trust.

Challenge to the NPOV
The page has been re-edited in the light of the previous objections so that the tone and content are considerably less contentious. In the light of these amendments, which take account of the objections, the NPOV challenge should be withdrawn?

The fact that it is a fee-paying school has no bearing on whether or not the text is neutral. Neither has the fact that there is a challenge to the neutrality of a sister school within the United Church Schools Trust.

--

Firstly, full bucket of thanks to whomever has added the buildings section to this article, it is a welcome addition. In reference to the NPOV, I am still concerned that there are no negative verifiable points made in the article, apart from asides regarding building state of repair. While I do not forsee that consensus will be reached on this matter, I hope you understand that to maintain a Neutral Point of View there will have to be not only verifiable positives, but verifiable negatives - while that may be read as if I want some kind of 50/50 split between the two, I only want to balance the article out from the positives eg: "good range of sports and extra-curricular activities" and "an agreeable urban campus with pleasant grounds." etc.

Other points you have made about the NPOV have been noted.

+ Do we really want a list of prefects in this article? A list of teaching staff would be perhaps more useful? I have slightly adjusted the formatting of the Prefects and House Captains section in the meanwhile.

Jackeftklang 19:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is now over a year and a half since the NPOV tag was added, since when several improvements have been made. Can we head towards removing it?

Does anyone regard the article as still significantly breaching the NPOV code? If so, could they provide details here, please, so that we can work on those remaining specific items.

May I suggest that, if no further objections are raised, the NPOV tag be removed in about a month's time (early January 2008)?

Feline Hymnic 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunderland High.gif
Image:Sunderland High.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (neutral point of view)
I'm sorry, but before, this page was neutral. It's been reverted back to its old state as of April 2006. It is a perversely written ad for the school, and contains nothing negative. I suggest the NPOV tag remains until the article is rewritten more accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.233.58 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "It's been reverted back...". Really? The edit history doesn't show reversion at all. It shows addition of referenced of previously uncited material to back up some of the statements. It describes the school. "Contains nothing negative". OK. But what point are you trying to make? Lack of negative statements does not equate to either claims of advertising or non-neutrality, does it? "Until it is rewritten". Wikipedia is a community effort, which includes your contributions. Please add your contributions to the article. You suggest "until it is rewritten". Then please assist in that rewriting. I propose removing the NPOV tag in a month from now, unless the non-neutral claim is generally upheld by others. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't go for personal attacks, but you seem to want to defend this page to the death. Please stop being so biased. I could go on and quote Jackeftklang, since most of what he disagreed with has been put back into this article. You seem to attack my 'lack of contribution', but I believe trying to keep articles neutral is a contribution in itself. The article is most certainly not neutral at the moment. I cannot, nay will not edit this article, because I know nothing about its subject. I propose leaving the NPOV tag in place until the article is rewritten or reworded to be more neutral.90.211.233.35 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please do assist in trying to reduce any non-neutrality you perceive. Please do indicate any instances of non-neutrality you perceive. Then someone (you, me, someone else) can try to fix them. Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I believe we agreed that the NPOV tag would remain in place until the article was rewritten or reworded to be more neutral. Doesn't seem to have happened. I have undid your removal of the NPOV tag. Aidthewound (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? As I read the above, an anon-IP (using two different IPs) with no apparent prior history of contribution to Wikipedia (see 90.211.233.35 and 90.211.233.58) applied the NPOV tag way back on 1 August, but then wasn't able to cite any instances of the claimed non-neutrality. So after a month (as proposed; see above), and with no evidence supporting their charge, I removed the tag. (An inappropriate NPOV tag is itself a potentially misleading statement.)
 * I'm local to that region in the UK so would like to see the article both good and non-neutral. From local knowledge I believe it is (sadly) not as good as it might be (can you help?); but I also believe what is there is at least reasonably neutral.
 * If you (or the early-August dual-anon-IP, or anyone else) are able to identify any actual or perceived non-neutrality (don't worry too much about fixes at this stage) that would be great! Thanks. I suggest a further week to identify some instances; then, if no instances can be found, to remove the NPOV tag. Is that enough time for you or would you like longer? Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag (well over a week has elapsed) due to lack of supporting evidence. Over the last year or so various people have worked to try to eliminate bias; we would be happy to continue to work on any other points that can be identified. The recent claims of bias have, despite requests, remained unsubstantiated. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunderland High 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/20120225002517/http://www.sunderlandhigh.co.uk/about-us/view/39/history-of-the-school to http://www.sunderlandhigh.co.uk/about-us/view/39/history-of-the-school
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619005225/http://www.sunderlandhigh.co.uk/ to http://www.sunderlandhigh.co.uk/

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) 14:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)