Talk:The Minster School, York

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Minster School, York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709174706/http://www.isi.net:80/HistoricalReports/1361_05.htm to http://www.isi.net/HistoricalReports/1361_05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Source checked and found to be a 404. I have reverted and flagged back to the original.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Establishment date
The date of establishment is specified on the official government information site as 1957. I concede that there may behave been a school or schools at or near the current site before that, but what is it that links those schools to the current school. The school itself submits and updates the information on Edubase, so if it says 1957 then the school has the ability to change that. That they haven't is significant. The reference to 627 is a dead link from 2010. Even if it were not dead, and explained the 627 date,it would also need to explain why the official data says 1957, given that the latter is more recent. And saying that there were earlier buildings is insufficient unless those earlier buildings can be tied directly to the current school. CalzGuy (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't get too hung up on government statistics. The edubase record merely says "exists" for 1957, it doesn't say "founded" or similar.  A lot of such government records have to start with a baseline, after all the government statistics are around 1300 years later than the putative foundation.  See Minster School's history page for the schools take.  Note that the infobox should draw its information from the detailed discussion on the page and therefore be in agreement with it.  Stating origins from 627, the school house built 1830, re-founded 1903 and registered with some government administrator in 1957 isn't a particularly good reason to change the infobox.  A lot more detail is needed on this stub. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dead links have all been updated. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Page 1 of the report is a pretty solid and official recognition of the earliest date. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - these are not 'statistics'. They are the official school register for England. Every school in the country is legally required to update their data every year. Statistics are counts and percentages, such as exam results. Edubase is different. And you are correct about Edubase having a default date built in to it. It's not 1957. Check out the Ampleforth entry or the Eton College entry which go back way before 1957. So the 1957 date is very valid. It represents an official recognition of a particular establishment. There is no doubt that there were schools in the vicinity of the Minster prior to this that. What there isn't yet evidence of is that these prior schools are direct descendent Sofia the current school. For a start some of the earlier schools were the sole suppliers of choristers to the minster. They were also boys only establishments and they were located in different buildings. So what is that provides the link from those schools to the current establishment? It's not the building. It's not the choristers. It's not the official record. What is it then? It sounds a bit like Triggers broom to me. Obviously the school would want to latch on to the earliest date possible, but that is self referencing. The school has the ability to update the 1957 date and doesn't. I fear the 627 link is a bit of puffery on the part of a fee paying school. We wouldn't accept such assurances from any other commercial entity. Why should we accept it from them? CalzGuy (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly the school is older than 1957; it's also clear that the history is complex, and the claim of institutional continuity since 627 is tenuous at best ("traces its origins to" is fine, however). This article  describes a book which apparently dates the current school to 1903.  I'm going to dig a bit further into this when I get a moment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While it might provide some insight into the history, I'm not sure a self-published history is a reliable source. CalzGuy (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the Church Times ought to consider the parable about motes and beams: "its many misprints, especially in the last third, are airritant", very "airritant" indeed! I'll admit to using "statistics" too loosely, but still don't get too hung up on government records, they are notoriously bad at dealing with things that don't fit nicely.  Perhaps 1957 was its first registration?  I'm reasonably certain that Eton existed prior to 01/01/1936 unless Henry VIII reigned a lot longer than I thought.  Have a quick glance at  which seems to be derived from his lecture notes at Keele University.  He states "Bede also records that in 634 a Song School was established at York" which would make sense.  Whether the school continued unbroken I don't know.  As I said earlier, research is needed to establish the history but 1957 really is unsupportable except to a civil servant. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is doubting that a song school existed back in the day. The issue at question is whether the song school(s) are directly linked to this school, given that they are not in the same premises, and do not serve the same function. They are just schools which happen to be in the same general area. And they idea that a reliable source can just be dismissed because it doesn't fit your particular POV is ludicrous. It is an extremely useful and reliable secondary source that directly identifies THIS school, whereas the other sources seem to reference other local schools without directly connecting to this school. My point about Eton is that it didn't start in 1857. But the fact that it claims a history older than its current registration could be answered by saying there was a boys secondary school called Eton in the same general location back to Henry VIII. Unfortunately no one has been able to show that the same goes for this school. Can you show that? CalzGuy (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a "particular POV", that's why I said "research is needed to establish the history". I am questioning the source's reliability because: 1) it is established as a register to regulate present day schools, not as historical research; 2) other sources (for example Roden and also the official ISI report) cast serious doubt on its accuracy as a historic record and 3) Other schools, notably Eton, clearly have the wrong dates.  Have a look at Kingswood School and then edubase – 01/01/1920 is not quite the same as 1748.  Incidentally, returning to York, providing 40 choristers to York Minster seems to me to "serve the same function" as much as any choir school does today. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't have a POV. None of us do. LOL. Given that you agree it is a register for present day schools, and that the subject of this article is a present day school, I'd have said that makes it a very reliable source for this article and it's subject. What it may not be a reliable source for is the hisstory of schools in the vicinity of York Minster, and I would never suggest it is. But given that the article title is not History of schools in the vicinity of York Minster, then that shouldn't affect it. Edubase is used throughout the canon of English Wikipedia school articles. It is even embedded in Infobox UK school. You just need to complete the urn= parameter and a link to edubase is automatically created. What you argument is saying to me extremely loudly, is that the subject of this article - the current school - is likely non notable and that the history of the schools in the vicinity of the minster may well be and certainly deserves more than a passing comment in the minster article itself. Which I would agree with wholeheartedly. CalzGuy (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)