Talk:Grammar School at Leeds

Why?

Are the names of teachers at all relevent. In fact does a school warrent so much detail. If it were a state school no one would write such irrelevencies about it. Mtaylor848 (talk)

---

I removed the following edit by User_talk:84.67.189.10, because it's just copied and pasted in with no attempt at context and it seems highly POV. Richard W.M. Jones 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Grammar School at Leeds is a grammar school in Leeds, United Kingdom, created in legal terms in August 2005 from the merger of Leeds Grammar School and Leeds Girls' High School. Physical merger is due to take place in september 2007 with a vast extension of the current buildings (should planning permission be allowed) The Headmaster of this new school will be Dr Mark Bailey.

There has been significant controversy over the suitability of this merger action - including in concerns to the ill-welcomed 'SHINE' logo published intended as part of the new GSAL scheme. The school has currently scheduled the physical merger for 2007, however, whether or not this will go ahead as planned is dubious. As of yet, no planning permission has been acquired for the desired alterations and additions to the Leeds Grammar School site in order to accomodate the forthcoming influx of staff and female pupils, a significant proportion of the teaching staff in LGS speculate that if such planning permission is denied or altered then we can expect a further delay in concerns to the date of the physical merger. Another problem will be the detrimental effects on the LGS sixth form during the year leading up to the merger - according to plans, the existing 6th form centre is to be demolished and replaced in time for 2007. Unfortunately this means the school year starting September 2006 will have no existing sixth form centre (as building work takes place). This is a severe blow to a sixth form who will be forced to do their AS and A-levels amist the chaos of construction work and without proper accomodation - which has benifited 6th forms in LGS for many years up till now.

It is widely accepted that the two schools (LGS and LGHS) have both moved to tackle a drop in pupil numbers in order to keep profitable. Over the past few years both schools have seen a drastic fall in teaching standards and pupil abilities as they have been forced to branch out to more and more potential pupils who would previously have been refused entry to the school on accounts of their entrance examination marks. That is not to say that such leneancy is not beneficial for the general populace, but it has degraded the social aura of the school as well as the school's productivity as a foundation of high education standards.

Quotation

The latest few edits ([1]) by an anon, adding a lengthy quote is not very encyclopedic. In addition, whom is the Richard W.M. Jones being cited? I have left a msg on the talk page of User:Richard W.M. Jones. Anyhow, it seems like a copyvio from the school's website to my mind, and I have thus removed it. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This "quote" is nothing to do with me, as you've probably guessed. I'm going to investigate the IP that posted this and attempt to send a complaint to the requisite authorities. Richard W.M. Jones 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Revelation!

Are we sure GSAL counts as a 'grammar school'? Sounds highly dodgy to me. Debs 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

...And why? It's called Leeds Grammar School and the Grammar School at Leeds... --80.6.146.72 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't teach grammar as a separate subject! OMG! It can't be a grammar school then! --91.105.12.104 07:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cause that's the definition of a grammar school. One which teaches a subject by the name of 'Grammar'. Right. The comment before that, the name is historical, not factual. In essence, no, it's not a grammar school, neither is it a 'public school' as listed on the right-hand side. It's an independent school, full stop. Tomjol 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Advert

The article is,in my opinion, constructed like an advertisment. My attempts to moderate have been speedily wiped. Because of this I have decided to tag as of 15 Oct 2007. The tag will be removed when I believe that the article has achieved a neutral position. If it continues to be operated as an advertising page for GSAL then it risks being cut down ramatically and rewritten. Please don't remove the tag withoud prior discussion with me on this page. ANHL 09:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I entirely agree with that one. I have a pretty serious grudge against this place, but even I think it's difficult to put details about a school which doesn't really yet exist. Having said that, section titles such as 'The Goals of the New School' fit with your accusation. IMO, entirely removing the 'Senior Management Positions' section would be a good idea, as would dramatically reducing the afore-mentioned 'Goals of the New School' section - perhaps leaving only details of how the pastoral hosues get their names and renaming the section 'Pastoral Structure' or similar. Tomjol 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree about the 'goals of the new school' section; think that this should be cut down to a section about the houses only. I think that if that section was edited then the article would actually be OK. Don;t have any problem with the management positions section personally. ANHL 07:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a bit and separated 'goals' in to 'goals' and 'houses'. Sign if you think that it is now neutral and that the tag should be removed... ANHL 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, and deserving of removal of the advert tag. Tomjol 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncited axe griding

User:ANHL is adding what looks to me like POV and opinion, with no citations and little hope of finding sources. This would be a case in point (how do you "actively discourage letters of complaint"? From what dark recess do you adduce the factoid "it has been said that if the merger had gone to the vote then it would not have gone ahead"? This is a second example. Which parents are we talking about here? You, ANHL? And an advert tag added. I'll probably get around to removing uncited POV from the article sooner or later, including these edits. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All the edits are to the best of my knowledge completely true, and NONE are personal opinion. There IS a large body of opinion which believes that anti-merger sentiment is that strong; it does not stem from some 'dark recess'. Before the edits it was purely an advertising page for the school edited by admin staff; at least I am approacing it from a neutral point of view. ANHL 12:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether your edits support your opinion or not, they are far from neutral, and you should not seek to kid yourself that they are. Suffice to say that any that are not cited will be removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a certain amount of bitterness present here. The addition to the final section would perhaps be better replaced with 'It has been suggested that opposition to the merger among parents and students was much higher than that acknowledged by the school' or similar. Tomjol 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied up some of the more, shall we say, contravertial passages. I've left the text on 'shine'. I quote Dr. M. Bailey on Shine: "It provoked many strong responses; and most of the stronger ones negative". Alright for you? The text on merger controversy has also been 'moderated'slightly to a more agreeable form.

If you do have any problem with the edits then please don't just blanket wipe them; discuss them here before deletion. If you don't have the time to do that then why not just give them the chance to sink or swim depending on whether people believe that they are accurate? P.S. If every passage of Wikipedia was fully cited then it would have never got off the ground. If you have the time then I can dig out some citations. ANHL 07:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing them here before deleting them. But anything controversial which is not cited will be deleted; end of story. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sentences which I find unacceptable right now include "However, this is mostly due to the fact that letters of complaint were discouraged and that there was never any discussion with parents about whether the merger would go ahead. It has been said that opposition to the merger was much higher among both students and parents and that if the merger had been voted on then it would not have gone ahead. However, the fact remains that it did go ahead without too much obvious opposition."

1. How were letters of compalint discouraged?

2. Who said that opposition to the merger was much higher...

3. Higher than what?

4. Why should we believe the assertion that "if the merger had been voted on then it would not have gone ahead"

5. Does not the last sentence negate most of the preceding doomsaying?

"highly controvertial 'Shine' booklet"

6. "highly controversial" (note spelling) according to who? (or should that be whom?). "Highly controversial" is clearly a value judgement, but it is presented as a fact. I note & accept your assertion that the headmaster had reservations about the booklet; even those are not for me sufficient to enable us to assert high controversy.

"and the poor use of language and overuse of flashy presentation did much to tarnish the image of the new school in the eyes of some parents"

7. What is your evidence for this? It sounds like speculation to me. How many parents were so affected? Is there a sufficiency of common reaction to be notable in a short article about the school.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted much of the problematic content, as you appear not to wish to discuss it. Please feel free to add cited controversial material, or very neutral tone uncited content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't had time to do much editing recently, not 'unwilling' to discuss it! Think article is probably more neutral now, both from how it was before my edits and arguably how it was after... However, the 'merger controversy' section should in my opinion say something about the controversy over the merger, not just the traffic arrangements. ANHL 08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If there was a controversy, then yes, it should. The question is, was there a controversy? The merging of LGS with LGHS seems somewhat uncontroversial to me, indeed, it seems like a logical thing to do. I'd suggest that if there was controversy, there would be a report to that effect in one of the Leeds papers - the Yorkshire Post, for instance. I think I'd want that level of validation; I'm not prepared to accept an assertion of controversy without evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. ANHL 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff! However, I think that there was more pro-merger sentiment at LGHS than LGS; I'll see what I can find to back that up.ANHL 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They just wanted to lose the ugly green uniform... --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For a luminous indigo one? Probably wanted the better school, n'all...(only a joke, in no way implying that LGS was better than LGHS on i'll have people chasing after me again...).ANHL 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GSAL CREST INDENTITY3.jpg

Image:GSAL CREST INDENTITY3.jpg 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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)