Talk:South Farnham School

change of head

Whether the school has the same headteacher as when the latest Ofsted report was made is irrelevant. It's WP:UNDUE to make a big deal of the change when mentioning the Ofsted report since it implies that the result on the report was due to the headmaster and that we should expect it to be different now that there is a new head. Meters (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving the information to the history section [1] does not make it any more relevant. I wouldn't object to a sourced historical listing of all of the the various heads, but listing just the current head and the one during the Ofsted report is clearly just an attempt to make the same point. The addition does not even say the the first head listed was the previous head, or give the date of the changeover, it just says that that person was head during the Ofsted report year. Meters (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... the ref is malformed and hiding the current head's name. I'll fix it so it displays but this does not mean I accept the material. Meters (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the article should discuss the long tenure of Andrew Carter as headteacher in more detail. Even though he is no longer headteacher of South Farnham School he is still in overall charge of the school as CEO of the South Farnham Educational Trust which was created as an umbrella organization to run Mr Carter's educational empire. It seems unlikely that just because Mr Carter is no longer involved in the day-to-day running of the school that its educational standards will suddenly deteriorate as Johnsmith0774's original edit seemed to imply to me. BabelStone (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I agree that the original edits seemed to imply that the good Ofsted results should be credited to Carter and not be expected to continue with the new head. The current version of the material is only slightly less obvious about the implication. Meters (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't leave such nonsense in place and couldn't see any way to improve it. The current head is always (or should be) in the infobox. There is no need for it to also appear in a paragraph about Ofsted (which takes a capital O btw). If we want to have a paragraph about its Ofsted results that's fine, but I would suggest a list of Ofsted inspections with the name of the HT during each inspection would be way OTT and certainly not replicated in any other English school article to my knowledge. Conflating HT at the instance of the inspection is WP:OR unless supported by independent reliable sources. And making some sort of backhanded swipe at the capability of the incumbent is surely against WP:BLP. CalzGuy (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal and this analysis. The editor who originally added the material is currently blocked for edit warring and the article should be in the uncontested state while the edit is discussed. My take is that a list of heads is appropriate,and mention of historical Ofsted results is fine, but connecting them to particular heads is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Blimey

Blimey whoever you are you have a very partisan attitude towards the school. The only conclusion I can draw if that you live near the school and your house price is being kept high because of the reputation of the school. The old headteacher was there for 25 years and he was replaced 2 years ago by the new head. This is very relevant when discussing the history of the school. Please tell me the reasons you have for removing the reference? Apart from what you have said up until now which don't give any valid reason from the schools point of view (only your own personal view of what you want in the article). Consider what is correct information about the school and it should be in the Wikipedia article. I will be changing the article back tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith0774 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already given my reasons. So have the other two editors in the above thread. You're welcome to participate. If you read it you will see that User:BabelStone has already suggested covering Carter's tenure and that I agreed. No-one has objected to listing historical Ofsted results either. What none of us are comfortable with is the apparent attempt to correlate Ofsted results to a particular headteacher.

Coming back from an edit warring block and saying that you will restore the contested material again is not a good idea. And whether I or the other editors live in the area is not relevant. Meters (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I live in Surrey, but at the opposite end of the county to Farnham. I've visited Farnham 3 or 4 times in my life, and never knowingly seen South Farnham School, nor met anyone associated with it. I have no conflict of interest in relation to the article. I am approaching this issue solely from a Wikipedia perspective. Johnsmith774 (talk · contribs) is not. He seems to have in depth and personal knowledge of the school, which may or may not involve a CoI. But he is not approaching the editing from a neutral point of view. He has a very strong opinion of what makes a good article, without having any evidence to back it up, so he's probably a teacher there. Here's my challenge: John can you show me any other school article in England, on Wikipedia, where the name of the head is associated with the report of the Ofsted inspection? If you can, I will be open minded enough to reconsider my opposition. However any wording needs to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CalzGuy (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no COI with this article either. I don't even live in that country. Meters (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question here s another school with details of the headteacher during ofsted inspections: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_College,_Guildford

I will be changing south Farnham school Wikipedia entry back to my entry as your arguments have been disproved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith0774 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Good spot. But that's a slightly different construction. It's an Neutral description of a well referenced chronology of notable events. So the appointment of a new headteacher is a notable event. An inspection which finds the school requires improvement is a notable event. The renaming of the school and the appointment of a management company are notable events. Not that The King's College, Guildford is problem-free. Much of the language is not supported by the references provided, for instance the 10 year contract. But by and large, the language used is quite neutral. And I would be happy for a chronology of notable events should be included in this article too. Perhaps as a first step we could agree which events to include? Certainly the appointments of each of the headteachers should be there. I'm not sure that the Ofsted inspections would have a place in the chronology as they have all been Outstanding as far back as I can remember. So mentioning that would be appropriate but not in the chronology. CalzGuy (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you the guardian of the article that you have to agree to everything. I will be changing south Farnham school to the same history of kings as close as I can while obviously changing the specific info Johnsmith0774 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a word of advice ... on talk pages like this you need to indent your comments using colons (:). So the first comment doesn't use any colon. Replies to that comment use a single colon (at the beginning of their comment ). Replies to that reply precede their comments with a pair of colons, and eqch subsequent reply adds another colon to the start of comment. This has the effect of neatly indenting the conversation in sequence making it easy to follow and understand.

On the substantive point, I'm not a guardian of the article. I'm just a wikipedia editor. There are no guardians of articles on wikipedia. Everyone is equal. However there are rules that we all need to follow such as the policies and guidelines and the Manual of Style. I and the pther editors commenting here have signposted some of these to you in our comments. It might be worthwhile reading and trying to understand some of them, because they do affect what you will be able to do here. You can of course make ANY changes you want to any article you like. The problems arise when the changes you make are not in line with existing policies and style. So I can comment on your comments and your contributions and suggest what I think would be acceptable to me, and probably many others. And you are free to ignore my suggestions and do something completely different if you want, but that doesn't mean your changes will be accepted by the community at large or will stay visible on the article for very long. Editors might revert your contributions, or change them, or they might be happy with them and just leave them as is. But if they are not, you could find yourself blocked again for violating WP:3RR or other disruptive behaviour.

All I am doing is trying to help. You may not see it as help. You may not want it. But unfortunately for you, you can't stop me offering it, so long as my behaviour is not considered disruptive by the wider community. Which I don't think it is.

We welcome new editors here on WP, especially if they have valuable contributions to make. But ingle purpose accounts are not looked on favourably. If the only reason you are here is to add your own point of view to this one article, then you may find the welcome is less than fulsome.

If you have a suggestion as to how the article should read, it might be worth make the suggestion here on the talk page and getting consensus before adding it to the main article. CalzGuy (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider your behaviour disruptive. Your arguments have been disproven and now your on the back foot talking rubbish Johnsmith0774 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Failing to indent talk page contributions when you have been advised of the necessity for doing so is usually considered disruptive- see WP:THREAD for details. CalzGuy (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Three editors have removed the material and attempted to discuss their concerns over the apparent attempt to connect the Ofsted results to a particular headteacher. There has been support for including a historical list of heads, historical Ofsted results (although as CalzGuy points out, if the results have been the same for all previous reports there is no point in mentioning specific reports in any chronology), and material on the previous head (Carter). An SPA who has already been blocked for edit warring over this and who threatens to restore the material again over our objections is making WP:AGF difficult. User:Johnsmith0774 do you have a WP:COI in this article? Working at the school, attending the school, or being related to or friends with someone working or attending the school would be examples of possible conflicts of interest. Meters (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)