Talk:The John Fisher School

Expansion
more refs pics welcome Victuallers 09:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) That stockbroker person was american, and his own article implies he was braught up in america.

You are correct. He did not attend JFSBreakfast100 10:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt the Famous Past Pupils be put into some type of order? Also shouldnt they have their dates while at he school listed?Breakfast100 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been loads of vandalism recentlyBreakfast100 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Help!
Can anyone help sort through the material? It looks like a lot of the edits have been vandalism edits, but it's hard for me to figure out.  Enigma  msg! 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Firm discipline"
Speaking as a former pupil (1968 - 76) I'm not at all confident in the accuracy of the sentence "The School has always had a reputation for firm discipline." Prior to the appointment of Mgr McLean in the late 1950s, the School was said to have had quite a poor reputation locally for behaviour: this information from the mother of a pupil during the change-over of headship. Does anybody please have a link for the Croydon Guardian article, so I can check the actual text? thanks.Rpw934 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that paragraph.  Enigma  message 08:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A reference has been provided in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. There is no requirement whatsoever that reference sources on Wikipedia must be verifiable by an internet web link. You are free to contact the Croydon Guardian and request a back issue of the paper.  A full source has been provided to enable you to do so.  Mass deletion of text which is supported by a valid source is plain vandalism. I am reverting the vandalism now. Marlon232 (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The information is not within Wikipedia guidelines as it clearly violates WP:POV. Also, please do not refer to good faith edits as vandalism. That is highly offensive.  Enigma  message 08:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mass deletion of an entire paragraph supported by a source does not strengthen the integrity of wikipedia but rather compromises its integrity -- implications follow. Also, the user you replied to raised an issue about one sentence but you decided to delete the whole paragraph which was peculiar to say the least.
 * The sentences starting "A number of Old Boys of the School ..." and ending ... "does not always manifest itself." are not POV and are supported by the source. The use of terminology such as "A number of Old Boys" as opposed to "Old Boys" and "claim" as opposed to "is" are in line with wikipedia guidelines.
 * The first sentence, which Rpw934 has issues with, is an introduction to the paragraph. If you like we can reword it to read: "According to some sources, the School has a reputation for firm discipline." or some such.
 * Let's not have an edit war but discuss this reasonably. If there is verifiable information contrary to that already presented by all means host that too. So far as what's already there, the source is transparent and people can visit local library archives and consult the paper or contact the newspaper and order a back issue.Marlon232 (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "let's not have an edit war"? You've already edit warred.   Apparently, now you want to "discuss" it, now that the article includes the horrid paragraph. Unacceptable. The paragraph in question is not suitable for Wikipedia, and I fail to see how it can be salvaged. I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop referring to my edits as vandalism. You may wish to check my edit history before referring to me as a vandal. Thanks,  Enigma  message 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have reverted a number of improper deletions of the paragraph. However, I done so when deletion was done without any discussion. Now that a discussion has been initiated, I am more than happy to engage in it.
 * I'm sorry but this page is not an advertisement for the School nor is its purpose to present the school in solely good light or solely bad light but rather to present verifiable material accurately. In fact, the paragraph in question is the only text in the whole article supported by a source.  I'm sorry if that particular section strikes you as "horrid" but this is not a glorification page for JFS.Marlon232 (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had never even heard of this place before randomly coming across vandalism to this page a few months ago, reverting it, and then having it automatically watchlisted like everything else I edit. I could care less whether the information is positive or negative. I do care whether it's encyclopedic, and content like that just doesn't belong. Please be more careful in the future about calling other people vandals. Thanks,  Enigma  message 16:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this was my first edit to the article, if you're curious.  Enigma  message 16:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So instead of dialogue, you refer to others' contributions as "vandalism".  Enigma  message 00:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If users avoid dialogue and the process of discussion to resolve issues and regularly engage in mass deletion of large pieces of text thus compromising the accuracy and quality of the article, then absolutely, yes. Note that I did not refer to you as a vandal but merely your action. Marlon232 (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits assert the school "has a reputation for firm discipline". What is the exact text for this assertion? The Ofsted Inspection Report (29-30 April 2008) says in contradiction that, "Students' behaviour, in general, is satisfactory and where firm and sensitive discipline is given, an orderly and positive atmosphere is maintained". There is no reference, as there rarely is, to the school's reputation in this regard. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ofsted quotation that you provide in itself asserts that "firm ... discipline is given" so it hardly discounts the statement in question. Of course, you are free to add that quotation, not failing to cite chapter and verse from the Ofstead report, into the text if you feel it would give a more balanced picture - I am not against editing in order to incorporate different or opposite views.  Note, though, that the statement that the school "has a reputation for firm discipline" is found in the history section of the article and is supported by a source from 2005.  On the other hand, your statement pertains to the most recent academic year. Either way, both imply that firm discipline features in JFS. Again, let me emphasize that you are free to incorporate differing views into the text. Finally, the source in question is referenced and you can consult the complete article at your local library or by purchasing a back issue from the newspaper. Marlon232 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment above (09:15, 27 July 2008) indicates that this sentence is a deduction on your part. There is no other indication from other references that this reputation exists, which indicates that this is a minority view and in light of the Ofsted report and other articles, given undue weight. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no deduction on my part. I've added some text and supported it by a source and on the most part the text is quoted from the original article. I have indicated that this is merely "according to one source" and have, thus, not claimed it to be the consensus or present in multiple sources.  Again, if you feel that citing the Ofsted report would give a more balanced picture then you are free to do so.  If there are other articles offering a different view, again, you are free to cite them.  Personally, I don't see the Ofsted report as contradictory -- after all, it affirms that "firm discipline" is practiced -- but simply more conservative in its findings and assertions. Good day. Marlon232 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you didn't say that until you were pushed.  Enigma  message 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Enigmaman, I see you're being constructive. Yes, I took heed of feedback and I'm glad I did because it improved the clarity of the article. There's nothing wrong with that. In any case, it was clear from the original insertion of that text what source was employed but if further edits made it clearer then so much the better. Incidentally, I was the first person to validate a statement in the article by a source. Marlon232 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was at JFS from '74 to '81 and I wouldn't say it was a very strict school for discipline. There was a Mr Tracey who chain smoked and whacked you with a wooden spoon if you got reported to him and I think he caned for serious matters. I think the prep school was worse in a way, I remember some boys being slippered quite badly just because their homework was deemed not good enough. What I hated about the school was its insistence you played rugby and never let you play football during Games. I think they had a snob preference for rugby. The swines.Sayerslle (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

people
I removed some people who are not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.241.128 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I also removed some bullshit defamation that has no real rteference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.241.128 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please comment, best with citing sources. --Say Headcheese!-- hexa Chord 2  03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference help
I thought it would be good to use this period of protection to gather references here to help editors achieve a consensus version.

For the admissions policy criticisms, an online version of the Croydon Guardian article is at under a different title from the print version currently used, but it does appear to contain all the relevant quotes. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The actual OSA decisions are available from - unfortunately they are hosted as .doc files, and it appears to be impossible to link directly to them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ofsted reports are available here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the section that keeps getting deleted is the newspaper report about the bullying, not the admissions policy, and the reference for that doesn't link you to the article so you can read it for yourself. Personally I think it's fairly insane to believe it has been invented, but it isn't a satisfactory reference as it stands I suppose. Also some of the former pupils get repeatedly deleted, in the same vandalising action that blanks the criticism of the bullying atmosphere, by some IP at Cuny Education in Brooklyn. I think that IP address should be blocked unless whoever is editing explains their problem.Sayerslle (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * References simply need to be verifiable, being online isn't a requirement. Anyone in Croydon who can ring up the paper and ask for a copy? –xeno talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe a major problem with this article, and the part being edit-warred over, is the weight given to the section on bullying. As indicated above, this is a minority view and given excessive prominence in the article. It is interesting to note that the 2004 Ofsted report mentions that bullying was reported to them, and that they investigated and found no bullying. This must be combined with the paragraph in question. To balance the article further it would be important to mention how Ofsted described the culture (discipline, pastoral care, community, etc) of the school both in 2004, and more extensively, in 2008. Furthermore to balance the references to religion in the problem paragraph, it would useful to report on the Section 48 report. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But the section on bullying is very short really, so the 'weight' is hardly excessive; the first hand testimony of ex-pupils can't be obliterated by Ofsted anyway. Put both in then, the first hand accounts of some ex-pupils and the Ofsted report findings. Anyone who just obliterates the paragraph is a vandal.92.10.167.35 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "'Parents are very pleased with the school and pupils are proud to attend. They overwhelmingly agree that the school and teaching are good. Concerns pupils express are about bullying and behaviour, and the care and support they receive. Inspectors found no evidence of bullying or of much unsatisfactory behaviour. Care and support are good.' (Ofsted 2004, p8)"
 * It's probably going to be useful to have this quote here. It's a summary of a section on p17 of the Ofsted report. The weight given to the current section is undue, and falls short of the neutral point of view. The current section is neither representative of views of bullying at the school, nor of general discipline, nor of the subject as a whole. It's going to need some additions to balance it out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But that paragraph still bothers me. Children express concern over bullying, and the care and support they receive....Inspectors find no evidence of bullying, and say the care they receive is good. That seems to me like, the pupils say there are problems and Ofsted just lay out an 'official line', 'Pupils are proud to attend.' This is the Ofsted that said Haringey Councils childrens services were good until Baby P made them check again. I'm not comparing the situations in any way Im just saying Ofsted are hardly perfect arbiters of anything and their inspectors deserve to be given less weight than people who day in day out were there. Sayerslle (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alumni list
Another part of the edit war, though I would normally expect this to be an incidental casualty of the reversion approach, is the list of notable alumni. There are three entries which are being added and removed, and so should be referenced or removed: Of course the others should also be referenced, but as these three form part of the edit war it is important to ensure they follow policy. I have to say Fr Tim Finigan does not at first glance appear to be a notable alumnus according to usual standards. So, can we get some references for these, which both establish their notability and that they attended to school? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthew Leek, (rugby player) ex Saracens, London Wasps, Leinster & England u21
 * Fr Tim Finigan, editor of the Hermeneutic of Continuity Catholic blog
 * Dominic Appleton and Gary Mundy, singer and guitarist respectively with Breathless (band)

I added Dominic and Gary because I was at school with them from 1974 to 1981. What is acceptable as verification that they were at the school? As for notability I just went to Amazon and searched Breathless on the music section, and the first item is Shayne Wards 'Breathless', the second and fifth items are albums by Dominic and Garys band, so if their work is sold by Amazon,after nearly 30 years since they formed, - is that proof of notability? Also on the wikipedia page for the band Breathless, it says Dominic worked with This Mortal Coil on their album Filigree and Shadow. Sayerslle (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say members of breathless (band) would probably be notable enough for an alumni list. We have an article about them, even though it's a bit short of references at the moment. However the notability of this fact can only really be determined by whether there are indepedent reliable sources mentioning it. Sources should provide a link between the notable person, and the school. I say this specifically because it would not be enough to provide a source which says that a Dominic Appleton attended the school. It should be the Dominic Appleton. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's setting the bar quite high for me! I've looked at n.m.e. com and theres a biography of the band but it doesn't speak about the pre-history of the band. On the bands own website the bassist, a woman Dominic met when he worked in a record shop mentions that Dominic and Gary met at school, but doesn't name the school unfortunately. How likely is it there is an interview anywhere that mentions John Fisher. I'll keep looking for a water-tight reference, - I hope it doesn't get deleted though because it is 100% true - I was in their class and Gary was a musical encyclopedia even then. In the meantime the vandaliser is a fraid-coat who won't discuss the issue ! Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said it is common when people continue just reverting each other to an old version, that legitimate edits end up being reverted with them. And it's useful to pull out the good edits from the disputed ones. The earlier instances of edit-warring over the bullying sections did not include these alumni. If you can find a reference that would be great, if not we can probably conclude that they are probably right, or at the least, uncontroversial and collateral. The references on the Internet to Matthew Leek sort of suggest that he might have attended this school, though they don't appear to state it directly. However I still think Fr Tim Finigan should be removed, unless it can be shown why writing a blog would make him notable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

someone started adding eople that dont meet wikipedia standards at end of 2008. i removed it but people switch it back to include it. content dispute and they need to source it not just keep reverting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.42.163 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But you're deleting Dominic Appleton and Gary Mundy from the band Breathless, who are, like I said evidently still active and if you go to Amazon their records are readily available, 30 years after they were formed etc..And youre saying its not properly sourced but you don't even 'source' yourself, youre an unsigned IP. Who are you to say Dominic and Gary don't meet Wikipedia standards. What hurts wikipedia are dumbass edit wars. Sayerslle (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some say that what hurts Wikipedia most is its propensity to collect unverifiable information. It doesn't matter for the purpose of making articles fit Wikipedia's content policies whether users are registered, unregistered, or not logged in. The relevant policy here is Verifiability, which is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Unverifiable information may be challenged and removed, and the burden is on those who wish to restore it to provide references. Removing this information while it is unreferenced is not vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And if I remove all the names on the list, because none are referenced, would you defend that action as defending wikipedia from the plague of unverifiability? the unregistered user doesn't explain why it demands references for some, and not others. So this one, has to provide a reference because administrator zzuuss and another say you have to or they'll delete to protect wikipedia integrity,  but this other one, doesn't , because zzuuss and ip are comfortable with that. So it boils down to your whim really. Sayerslle (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you search ' the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com ' and then  search john fisher the entry for Thursday 6 March 2008 which is founders day apparently,  Fr Tim Finnegan mentions he was at the school that day to give a talk, and that he was at the school himself between the years 1969-1976. So that is verification. Is he notable. I don't know,  but I think he is illustrative of a strand of the schools outlook because looking at the blog it seems kind of ultra-Catholic and keen on latin, so his inclusion in the list of former pupils does kind of tell you something about the school. May all its delusions come true Sayerslle (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference for bill nighy etc. from this is cornwall etc..this could be one of those circular things, where this is cornwall took the names of famous ex-pupils from wikipedia. Can't we get a better preferably pre-wikipedia reference for Bill Nighy at least. I'm not being picky I just think its not fair if breathless get removed because I can't find a reference, when I was with them at the school, when others stay with refs probably supplied by articles themselves taking their info from the unreferenced  wikipedia Sayerslle (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

paragraph about abuses
fwiw,I happened to have noticed this, and in my opinion the version that was protected was--purely by chance--the right version. The paragraph that was removed needs much stronger sources than the one given to avoid being defamatory. I would very advise against restoring it without them. A local newspaper is not an acceptable sole RS for accusations of this magniitude-- I may have an instinctive feeling that the accusation  may possibly have some basis,  but that hardly affects the matter. DGG (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * same thing with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husounde (talk • contribs) 10:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have agreed with you if the content of the quotations were stated as a 'matter of fact' but this is not the case. The leads make perfectly clear that these claims follow an investigation by a local newspaper and are attributed to that source. In other words, this text does not itself endorse the statements but merely points to their existence and there is nothing wrong with that. Had the text simply read "There have been documented cases of abuse at JFS." then I would have agreed with you. As it stands, everything seems proper and aboveboard to me. Marlon232 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * dgg is right. the paragraph needs stronger sources. I will remove and you can put it back with stronger sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.202.254 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It might have needed 'stronger sources' if the claims were stated as a matter of fact but this is certainly not the case. All we have here is pointing to the existence of the claims with no endorsement of the claims themselves and with complete clarity regarding the type of source. Therefore, reverted. Marlon232 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * rumours need to be substantiated. therefore, reverted/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.29 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The report did not say there were rumours ..it said a series of interviews with former pupils were used for the report, thats not rumours. I asked DGG  about his view and he wrote back,  "Bullying is not uncommon. If there were articles in the national press that the school is notorious for being amongst the worst in the country,  we   might conceivably  include a sentence ..." !!!!! If the school were notorious for being amongst the worst in the country for bullying I should bloody well hope there would be a few sentences in the article. As it is, unless wikipedia has a bias against local newspapers that I don't know about it seems to me the only reason that there can be for censoring the paragraph is that it is unflattering to the school - which it is, but so what, that's life. I think it is adequately sourced and is interesting testimony from people who were there, not rumours. It isn't out of proportion its just a few sentences, bloody hell. Sayerslle (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I would only add that it should be realised by those who seem to take issue with the paragraph that the wikipedia article for JFS is not meant to serve as an advertisment for the school. In order to provide readers with an unbiased and broad historical and factual overview, it is important to include different view points. So, along with the many positives the School may have to offer, it is a worthwhile piece of commentary. And again, the wikipedia article does not endorse the claims, it cites a source, and quotes the relevant section so not to be taken out of context, etc etc. As Sayerslle says, it's a small paragraph and not in a very prominent place in the article, so please calm down and be rational.Marlon232 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

this is nothing like an advertisement for the school. undue weight for that paragraph when it doesnt have good sources. styop bullying legit editors marlon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.64.106 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have a policy against newspaper articles as sources. I don't see any legitimacy behind your claim that the paragraph has been given undue weight (it's a short paragraph in a non-prominent position). The bullying is being done by unidentified IPs who persit in deleting mass portions of text and refusing to engage in any proper discussion for months on end.Marlon232 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Marlon is right- it's a reliably sourced paragraph, and it helps make a balanced article. Period. tedder (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

no marlon is wrtong and your obviously biased. unprotect the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.64.106 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I do not see consensus, I suppose this needs to be taken to the NPOV noticeboard. Though print newspaper articles are acceptable as sources, in a case like this, i think we would be justified in asking for a link to the actual article or a extended quotation. The present paragraph leaves it open whether the abuses were conducted by the staff, condoned by the staff, ignored by the staff in violation of their duty, or in fact whether the staff was seriously trying to prevent it,  and whether they are actually complaints of one or two people or more general.  In particular, the sentence mentioning a particular named individual is a violation of BLP policy, and I am removing it.  I do not think it matters if it is a direct accusation or an innuendo. Such claims cannot be sourced by one local newspaper article.  If someone disagrees, they can take it to the BLP noticeboard or AN/I, but I think our policy about this point at least is extremely clear.    DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus is among the opinion expressed by registered users, either here on this talk page or when reverting, and the paragraph was deemed fit for inclusion as part of a major re-work conducted by Sayerslle and zzuuzz some months back.
 * Until very recently the only users who took issue with the paragraph were unidenitified IPs who refused to engage in dialogue on the matter. In particular, the regisetered user Husounde who has recently voiced his discontent was operating as IP 69.193.64.106 until semi-protection forced him to engage in talk and then to sign in to his registered account so he could continue his edits.
 * Can you please provide a Wiki policy link which mentions your claim regarding newspaper articles and material of this nature. I do think there is a valid distinction between pointing to the existence of such claims in an article and explicitly endorsing the claims as a 'matter of fact'.
 * I accept and respect your judgement regarding violation of BLP policy and also weasel words, the latter of which has been corrected by myself and the former by yourself. So, thank you. Marlon232 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, let me just clarify something. I find this paragraph as it stands deeply unsatisfactory in several respects. I have left further comment both above and in a previous discussion on my talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I see this article and its talk are still popping up on my watchlist. Marlon, your version does not have consensus. I don't see how you can keep claiming that when I only see one person who agrees with you. DGG, zzuzz, Husounde, and several IPs appear to disagree with your version. You claim Husounde is the same person as an IP, but I see no evidence of that. What do you have to back up your claims? One person is on your side, and at the bare minimum, five people disagree.

I told you back when I protected the article due to a dispute that further edit-warring would not be tolerated. You chose to ignore me, and several people who warned you about edit-warring. This is your final warning. If you continue to edit war against consensus (or at the very least, with no consensus backing you), you will be blocked. I see three warnings this week on your talk page about edit-warring.  Enigma msg  22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Grossly incorrect Enigmaman! People who have adopted my position include Sayerslle, tedder, HexaChord, DuncanHill, Bbatsell, Onevalefan, etc, etc, etc.  Just go check out the edit history!
 * The people who warned me about edit warring this week, apart from an admin who actually supports my position, was the user who I was reverting and, if you had been thorough, you would have seen he was copying and pasting warnings all over the place. But your good at taking things out of context, so thumbs up to you Enigmaman!!
 * In any case, I now give up. I wanted this article to be balanced and have a broad overview of the school but as there seems to be such a push for this article to act as a glowing adverstiment for the school then so be it. All those IPs can have their way. Marlon232 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can stop it with your game-playing. I don't care what excuses you have. None of those people have commented recently in support of your position aside from Sayerslle. You have continued to edit war and violate 3RR. You will be blocked for 48 hours, and if you come back and continue with bad faith assumptions, attacking those that disagree with you, and wildly out of control edit warring, you will be blocked indefinitely.  Enigma msg  22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the disputed paragraph: does anyone take issue with it being removed? I see no consensus for its inclusion.  Enigma msg  21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would welcome its removal with this caveat: If anyone is able to produce the article in question, in its proper context, it should be looked at again. At the moment I simply cannot trust the conclusions and selections drawn by Marlon232. I assume good faith and everything, but given his absolute insistence on including it and only it for the last year, his previous inaccurate generalisations, the fact that no other editor has reviewed it, that no other publication has the same conclusions, and that it was a local paper, leads me to concur with DGG above - the claims need more support and verification. I have said consistently that the article needs additions to balance this paragraph, assuming it can be verified. As it stands it should be removed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked DGG about his opinion the paragraph was unsatisfactory and he told me in his reply " I read that newspaper article, and in my opinion....' so can't DGG give us the transcript or give us the means of letting us read the article. I dont understandwhat you mean zzuuss by saying  the article needs to be understood 'in its proper context' - what does that mean. Presumably the paper wasn't sued out of existence for its report so I don't understand the  desperate desire of some editors to remove this . I think it should go the NPOV noticeboard -  and Enigma, I object if you arbitrarily remove it - more than one editor thinks the paragraph should remain. If DGG lets us know how he accessed the article we could all read it . Sayerslle (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, by "the proper context", I mean looking at the whole thing and answering all the questions we don't know the answers to: what did the article say; what was the nature of the article; what was the nature of the bullying or discipline; what conclusions did it reach; how many were interviewed; how many were 'tormented'; who else was asked for opinion; where did these pupils come from; what else did they have to say; what did it say in favour of the school; was there any other evidence; does the paper have a 'position' on the school? how does it compare it to other schools.. some are more relevant than others, but the list kind of goes on endlessly and we won't have the answers until we see the article, or have it reported from a reliable source. I'm also very curious why I can't find any mention of the article on the paper's website or the Internet. If someone wants to email me a copy, great. Then we need to look at reporting it in its proper context, which I've mentioned elsewhere. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've visited the croydon guardian site and searched for the article too, but I can't find it, so as I can't read the article and can't discover what it said exactly I think, with your caveat - that if the article can be produced it should be looked at again, - that on reflection I wouldn't object if it were removed. Sayerslle (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable alumni
This section badly needs cleaning up. I am happy so to do but I should like to seek support, here, first. A prerequisite is that attendance at the school should be reliably sourced - no source must mean no inclusion. The second prerequisite is notability. A page is not needed to demonstrate notability but it helps! Looking at the red-links some have no claims to notability and for some the claims can be simply tested. Take Mike Pointing for example. If he has played in a competitive match for Harlequins first team then he meets WP:Athlete. If he has just played for their academy then he doesn't. If Michael Latham is an influential film-maker why doesn't he have a page? My view is that if an editor thinks that an alumnus is notable and feels strongly that they should be included in this list then write a stub! It is always quicker to write a stub than have a long debate trying to establish their notability separately.

To deal with this situation efficiently I am proposing that red-linked or unsourced people should be moved here. This preserves the information that we have about them and they can then be moved back to the article as sources are found or notability is demonstrated. Views, please. TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with you, TerriersFan. Move the redlinks here or give a diff to the deletion; they can be added back when the burden of proof is met. tedder (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I too agree with your suggestion. Thanks for taking this on. Marlon232 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And another support. A few are non-notable, but I see a few (referenced) redlinks with potential. Bring 'em here for sorting out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

marlon
this user edit wars and calls my edits vandalism even though they aren't. this is wrong. I tried to warn him and he removed it calling it vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husounde (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Selective from 1992 to 2000?
Whoever runs this website please make it clear that the school was selective between 1992 and 2000. Because this is the only reason people sent their kids there otherwise we would have gone Private or Grammar. It makes kids who attended between 92 and 2000 out to be comprehensive school boys!

This will impact their job/career chances!

Thank you,

Mr and Mrs Horan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.140.72 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article already says that: "In 1992, following much discussion and a vote by parents, John Fisher was incorporated as a Grant Maintained School and operated a selection policy."[emphasis added] Is there a tweak to this wording you recommend? As for what's in the infobox, that's just a snapshot of the school's current status, not its complete history. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Logo, selective
Can someone please get a half decent school logo up on this site please i've been asking for 2 years.

And also please stress the school was selective from 1992-1999 and that it simply was not a bog standard comp.

Thanks,

Mr Horan (The previous text was moved here from the main article page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.81.119 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the logo, point me to one online, and I can see about getting it onto Wikipedia. Regarding selectiveness, see the above section. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the red file there now. Husounde (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Advertising, neutral point etc.
I believe this article firstly is written like an advertisement especially the beginning paragraphs. This is most likely due to the author being a me,her of the school causing a biased and better view of the school. I will rectify this. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud  22:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "This is most likely due to the author being a me,her of the school"
 * Is "me,her" suposed to be "member", by which you mean an alumnus? Quis separabit?  23:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right, although some of the stuff about Oxbridge and high Russell Group university entrant rates is correct it was very much akin to an add, I have improved this a lot as you will see. I also suspect an alumnus had chosen to highlight these points. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramboed4545 (talk • contribs)


 * to me it sounds too biased. All praise, I see no reason why the assault incident a few years back is not on the article. Is the editor a governor of the school ie the user putting all this praising info in 90.204.156.102 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable source, please. Husounde (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A more normal structure
The pot pourri approach to article structure was hindering reading and editing. I have pulled it back to resemble a more normal school article- St John Fisher Catholic School.The article is about the school- that is architecture, curriculum etc and we need to focus on that, a huge part will be the struggle that the diocese and governors have had with selection but that should be contained as history and not become all embracing. While sports results interest some, they should take undue weight. If tables are used, then they should be used properly |+ for example. ClemRutter (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Simon James Green
The section on Simon James Green does not adhere well to NPOV, it starts off talking about the author/book in a negative tone, suggesting that a strong point of the visit was to make youngest boys in the school purchase the books, also at no point do the sourced citations talk of "Catholic teaching on healthy relationships". I suggest this section needs a rewrite/change in approach.Rhagfyr (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article sent out to the families made it clear that Simon would be signing books and gave some suggestions for books they may wish to purchase prior to the event. That initial letter is contained on the cited link.
 * The second point on the citation of the objection on the grounds of Catholic teaching on healthy relationships is most clearly covered in the next citation, the "Formal position statement" 150.143.117.138 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)