Talk:Hillcrest Grammar School

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Location in Bramhall

There is a photo of its former location [1] but it is on a blog. Are there any documented sources for where it was and also the name before Grammar was added? Billlion (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tribunal finding

A section has been added by an anon ditor on a tribunal finding on discrimination. Is this sufficiently interesting to deserve a whole section in a stub article? Is it encyclopedic enough. Perhaps it is more like a news story? Billlion (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not sure if the sources cited are reliable. Youreable.com seems to be a discussion site and the article there does not cite any reliable sources. The Manchester Evening News article seems to have just copied the same web site, and may not be a reliable source?Billlion (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The school was found to have committed an egregious breach of a young person's legal and human rights and was ordered by the statutory tribunal to take remedial action. This is of wide interest, to citizens, to children in particular and to disabled people in particular, disability activists, those interested in disability and equalities law, to parents, and of course to all connected with the school. It is as encyclodpedic as it needs to be.

The sources are typical of those available and entirely reliable - is anyone seriously doubting that the case was heard, evidence was led, and findings made in the terms reported? If a prominent person was convicted of a crime, or found in breach of a civil duty by a court, and the fact was recorded in a Wikipedia entry, would press reports be insufficient, or would it be necessary to link instead to the court roll relating to the indictment and conviction? I think the Best Evidence rule applies here.

The Tribunal system has changed recently and the tribunals have not yet got round to publishing their judgements; when these reports are published a link will be put up. An internet search will find many reports, the Yourable and MEN ones being representative and most likely to last for a while. Both the Yourable and MEN sites contain different information and seem to represent some independent reasearch by the authors. 79.69.231.75 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it happened but that does not constitute WP:V. We need a higher standard of evidence than a local newspaper and a discussion web site. But the court roll and published (on paper judgment) does not need to be on line to be cited. If an editor has seen it and can refer to it properly in a way that someone sufficiently motivated could go and look it up (as the case for a paper source in a library for example). At the moment it still feels more like a story that should have been on Wiki news and linked here rather than dominating a stub Wikipedia on the School.

So looking at the article as it stands now it seems that the finding was confidential and apparently leaked to the press. I am not sure how this should be handled for two reasons. (1) If the report is confidential is it proper or legal to report it in a Wikipedia article? (2) Even if some editors have privileged access to the report, what is WP:V verifiable is just newspaper articles in local papers. Should we then put disclaimers such as "Local newspapers reported..." rather than stating it as an implicitly verifiable fact? Billlion (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this section (again) for the above reasons. It has massively undue weight (taking up about a third of the article) and is not supported by multiple reliable sources. AD 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good question is raised above. How do we deal with "leaked" information? The source of leaked info is usually anonymous and has contacted only one person, think deep throat. We have to put our trust in the person/organization that the info was leaked to. Can we determine who first reported this information? Cliff (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way is to report what a newspaper article said was leaked, if that is notable. It is verifiable to say what a newspaper article said, but it does not mean the claim itself is verifiable. It would also have to be notable, and here the point is "a newspaper claimed that.." is usually less significant than "verifiable sources confirm that..". Billlion (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the section has been reinstated but the above concerns have not really been addressed. The sources are still just newspaper articles, and it still seems unbalanced for a short article.Billlion (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillcrest Grammar 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]