Talk:Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe

Page

Roy Page? The Maths teacher? He was teaching back in 75 when I first went to the Grammar School and though he never taught me I remember him from supervising the lunches. I assume it is the same person as he was a young man then. Indeed I hope that is the case, as RP Brown, headmaster durung my time, came to the school as headmaster and was far too remote. Doubtless the site page will confirm or deny my suspicions, SqueakBox 15:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

One and the same. In my opinion a good man for the job, very "with it". ZoFreX 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree about a good man for the job. I guess he must only have been in his late twenties when I knew him (from 75) though I had imagined he was much older but "with it" is a good description as is humorous. I just never saw him as headmaster material, perhaps because he was so young. I was clearly wrong, SqueakBox 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Roy Page, Former Senior Deputy Headmaster, who is currently Acting Headmaster, while Mr. Dingle is on leave." - source / confirmation anyone? ZoFreX 08:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wolfe

The new section on Dr. Wolfe is slightly misleading, in that the Government eventually backed down and said that a short assessment would be all that is required to obtain Qualified Teacher Status in his circumstances. (See bottom two sections of this BBC News Article)--Chrisd87 10:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section to be better - thanks for wikifying and correcting it btw Chris. I've also emailed David asking him to check the facts, as he'd be one to know :) ZoFreX 11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Dingle

I can't find this Daily Mail article and the Mail online appears ignorant of it. Please source and we can replace it, until then I have removed it as a possible spoof, SqueakBox 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Source article was in the Daily Mail, Saturday 4th February 2006, Pages 8-9, but was not made available online. The school has however responded to it with a press statement, suggesting authenticity. --Chrisd87 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that the articles really appeared in the Daily Mail on Saturday 4th February 2006, I have scans I can show a mod or whatever but obviously cannot make them publicly available. For now I'm reinstating the section, because I know that the article appeared and I can prove it. Edit: Also a smidgen of information from the local newspaper free press ZoFreX 18:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Far be it for me to accuse the Daily Mail of tabloid journalism, but do we have any other more reliable sources for this information? The Bucks Free Press article you cite only mentions the investigation into the allegations made by the Daily Mail, not the substance of the allegations themselves, and what we don't want to do as an encyclopedia is to repeat an untruth and get into trouble for it. Find another reliable source for the allegations, and then we can talk about the paragraph being reinserted. -- Francs2000 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what the Daily Mail is like, but thus far the article only says that "allegations have been made", which is true whether they are founded or not. 137.222.10.57 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I just made sure that everything is alleged only, and that nothing has, in reality, been revealed. -- Francs2000 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, the use of "revealed" was careless of me. /Sable X. Veins 88.106.228.157 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Bucks Free Press citation as the edit (allegations echoed by local paper) and what was before (allegations being investigated by LEA) are both factually inaccurate. ZoFreX 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It may interest people to have a look at [1] from the RGS website. (It also answers your question about Roy Page, ZoFreX)--Chrisd87 02:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Which I have added as good NPOVing of the whole allegations, ie giving a balanced portrayal, SqueakBox 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni - James Bunyard

I have reverted the edit of 16:14, 12 May 2006 by 84.92.84.138 in which this person added Dr. James Bunyard - Famous surgeon to the list of notable alumni. James Bunyard was in fact an alias used by Mr Dingle. See, for example, the article in The Bucks Free Press which includes:

The allegations were made by 35-year-old Nicky Barr, who claimed Mr Dingle had snorted cocaine at parties and wooed her by pretending to be a top London surgeon called James Bunyard.

I like your sense of humour, 84.92.84.138, but unfortunately the truth must prevail...

Euchiasmus 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Boarding house picture

I've removed the link to the boarding house picture as it went to a 403 error. Does anyone have or know of a valid link or picture? --Chrisd87 21:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

shame...

This article could really be better. Pictures? Structure? Anyway, I'm an old boy.. 2005. 'Twas fun. The best of schools. That dingle story had me in hysterics. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well as a slightly older old boy (1981, before you were born!) I am too far from the RGS to go back and take some photos but if you were to take some (esp of the clocktower) we could indeed publish them, you would just need to upload the files. Glad you liked the school (I hated it) and can understand why the Dingle story got you in hysterics, certainly RP Brown was the epitome of respectability and Dingle sounded like he failed miserably in following in his footsteps, SqueakBox 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Calls to cite web

Please do the {{cite web}} calls by using params "url" and "title". Also "accessdate" should be specified (is a required param). --Ligulem 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

alumni

Question: why was Mark Oldknow removed from the section on notable alumni? There seems to be no reason given for this

Because he doesn't have an article, hence not notable enough, SqueakBox 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mascot

Needs sourcing as Dim Tingle is obviously a piss take of Tim Dingle, and a fairly crude one, and hence without proper sourcing it must be removed. If it were a real mascot it would predate the extremely recent Dingle episode and this character clearly is not worthy to be the RGS mascot, SqueakBox 14:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Headmaster's title

Removing the headmaster's title with the edit summaries "that's not how we do things here" and "we don't do that", is neither helpful nor true. Including the title conveys additional information and breaks no Wikipedia rule that I am aware of. - Scribble Monkey 07:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Source alumni

We must have a reliable source for the inclusion of anyone in this list. The fact that I know that, eg, Tim Tolkein went there is not sufficient as it would be original research. I welcome the return of alumni sourced. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree, are we going to look though to make sure we can find references for those that we know attended the school? -- Roleplayer 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Television "Paedogeddon"

I removed the paragraph on claiming the school sued a TV show. Complete lies. The link provided showed a clip from the show, and the footage showed nothing at all like ANY building on the school's premises.

Adding to this is the fact that the school buildings are not very distinct in the first place (so would have trouble starting a lawsuit), state schools are not particularly litigious and only idiots try to sue a comedy programme... I think this is a joke that has slipped through the wikipedia editing net. 86.129.220.197 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Atre

SLST

These are unfounded opinions, likely posted by a member of the team. The SLST is not particularly well known even within the school, and the facilities are hardly noteworthy; maybe good for a school in Bucks, but compare it to the new Hall at Hampton School or the facilities at St Pauls, to just give two examples. If no objections, I'd like to remove it Sage1314 (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections to removal, removed Sage1314 (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Objection: The team is an integral part of the school with over 40 members as well as 3 members of staff. The equiptment is of far greater quality than that of many schools and is available to any boy who wishes to partake in theatrical productions on a backstage level. It is a very well known team within the school and it can be guarenteed that if you are to ask any boy at the school who the SLST are or "stage and lighting team" they will almost definately know.

Undone by Javindo (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the two references you have added still do not account for the claims you are making - I still believe this content is irrelevant to this wikipedia entry. However, in the interests of politeness I will wait for you to justify your opinions rather than simply reverse your edit. Pointless speculation as far as my involvement in the school is concerned is equally irrelevant, and I refuse to dignify it with a response. Sage1314 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I also refer you to the wikipedia notability guidelines. This also applies to the seperate page you have created for the RGS SLST Sage1314 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Gowns

Since the departure of two members of staff very fond of the gown attire (Tim Dingle, Peter Cowburn) this has become far less of a tradition. Perhaps the article should read more along the lines of "Gowns are occasionally worn by members of staff however the tradition has slowly faded in recent years." --92.1.158.111 (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a complete removal of any mention of the gown as Don Wayne does not adhere to this strict "tradition"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.140.125.85 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems that during certain events, such as the annual remembrance service held in school, many of the staff including almost all senior staff do wear their gowns as a formality and to follow the tradition. Should this be reflected in the article? MattIPv4 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Public controversies section

This section needs significant work.

1. Dr David Wolfe: I've removed this section. It was a minor, short-lived bureaucratic mixup over the qualifications of foreign professor. The professor and the school claimed the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) insisted there were no exception to having the professor pass the maths General Certificate of Secondary Education to obtain his Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). The GTCE backed down and apologized for not being clear about the alternate route to a QTS.
2. Homophobic Comments in Posers: A recent case in which a long-retired former math teacher volunteering at the school added an inappropriate commentary in an optional math quiz question. The question was reported by the first students to see it and immediately withdrawn by the school. The volunteer is no longer active at the school. This was first added [2] as a minor edit by a throw away account, and removed with summary "nadequately sourced, not minor, and it was a long-retired former teacher" since it was not minor, it left the impression that the teacher was a staff member, it used an unattributed and unsourced direct quote, it made unsourced claims about the response to the event, and it implied that Stonewall had complained about the event when they had actually praised the school for its rapid response. The material was then restored [3] by a different editor with some of the issues I had raised on the throw-away account's talk page [4] addressed. While this version is an improvement it still does not address all the problems and I have removed it again pending discussion here.
3. Timothy Dingle: A headmaster who left the school under a cloud and was temporarily banned form teaching. I agree this should be covered in the article, but it needs to be covered neutrally and well sourced. I have already removed a overly-sensational title, a discussion of some unfounded drug accusations, and a pointless source that did not support any of the claims, but the asection needs more work. For example, it starts off by mentioning allegations with an unattributed direct quote, sourced to a dead link which appears to have been an unreliable source (a web site "devoted to Dingle case"). Terms such as "forced to resign" and "sacked" are not neutral, particularly when he had already resigned from the first school before their decision, and apparently chose not to take up the offered position at the second school. Meters (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

RE Wolfe: I plan to summarize and clarify this section shortly following your explanation of the situation. MattIPv4 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Edited to contain further explanation of situation. MattIPv4 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

RE Maths: I have now re-added this and edited it further with more sources and a clearer explanation of the schools involvement and that it was produced by a retired teacher. The image has also been re-added as I have full permission to use it. MattIPv4 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Meters Are you happy for me to now re-add this with the changes proposed here? MattIPv4 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Do not restore this again until other editors have looked at this and reached a consensus if it should be included. It appears to have been an event that was immediately dealt with. Where's the controversy? no-one is defending this. A volunteer added an inappropriate comment. The material was immediately removed and the volunteer is not longer involved. And as I have explained, the image is indeed a copyright violation. You cannot reproduce copyrighted material in any form. Taking a picture of it does not give you the right to publish your picture as your own work. We can only use the test paper if the school grants us permission to use it, and I very much doubt that they will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is still an ongoing argument between some students and the school, as the school have not yet apologized to students regarding this. I understand what you are saying about the image, but how come all the news outlets are clear to use the image? I will hold off on adding this section back for now. MattIPv4 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this getting widespread coverage in the news, at the regional or national level? If so, then that might suggest that the event is significant to the school overall and thus worth mentioning in the article. Please add links to that coverage here.

As for the image, news media work under slightly different rules. The guiding principle for us on Wikipedia is the non-free content criteria. We can use material that belongs to other parties under some very limited rules. One of them is that the image conveys information that cannot be readily conveyed in text. So, the test paper would fail that criterion: we could simply quote the passage that led to dispute rather than include a photograph of the test. (When a photograph is taken of a 2-D work—normally this is about paintings, but it would also apply to a test paper—the photographer is effectively duplicating the original. Thus, there is no new copyright to the photographer; the copyrights and any restrictions on reuse that were in place for the original also apply to the photo of the document.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)`

Ah, ok, I understand, I'll create a new proposed revised version that has a quote in it. Regarding news coverage, this page has links to most sites that covered it: http://mattcowley.co.uk/RGSHW%20Posers/ MattIPv4 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Updated proposed version MattIPv4 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please post your proposed changes and sources here, rather than expecting us to go to your website. Meters (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources: Daily Mail The Sun Huffington Post Pride Life MattIPv4 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have also added below the proposed new version. MattIPv4 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

RE Dingle: I have no touched this section since your edits but I plan to later go over it and to source it further where possible. MattIPv4 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed: Posers Homophobic Comment

In September 2016, the RGS distributed a set of maths questions containing "homophobic and unnecessary" comments which sparked outrage in students and parents alike. The school made headlines on many news sites including the Daily Mail, The Sun and many LGBT+ news sites. It also prompted the response of several LGBT+ activist groups, many condemning the question, but a few praising RGS' actions to prevent this occurring again.

The question concerned was as follows: "If in a town 70% of the men are married to 90% of the women (and each marriage is between one man and woman, as God intended when he made humans male and female) what percentage of the adult population are married?"

The questions were produced by a retired teacher who had left the school many years ago, however the questions were distributed by the school's maths department with seemingly no-one proof-reading them. The maths department strongly encourage students of a higher maths ability to complete these questions and the sheets are sometimes set as homework to classes, however they were not compulsory. When the mistake was noticed by students, staff quickly removed all copies from circulation where possible. However the incident quickly blew up on social media, where many outraged students complained.

References

The Bucks Free Press ref would not be sufficient on its own since it appears to be just a local media outlet, but since this has coverage in national media too it's OK. However, the Bucks Free Press ref does not support the use of the direct quote "homophobic and unnecessary" as I said above. We cannot use unattributed direct quotes.

The Daily Mail and Sun are acceptable sources but three is not "many news sources". If we cite a source that says that many news sources have reported on the issue then we can say that, otherwise it is non-neutral language based on your opinion and cannot be included. Similarly Pink News is one LGBT site, not "many" and not "several". And why the redundancy? "news sites" is included twice in the same sentence, and LGBT sites are mentioned in two separate sentences. You are citing Pink News as a news source, so where are the sources showing that there is even one, let alone many LGBT activist groups commenting on this? There is no evidence of "many" groups condemning the events, or of "a few" praising the school's reaction.

I'm not certain that Pink News qualifies as a reliable news source. They state that they are "pro-LGBT" so there is certainly a possibility of biased reporting, but they do correct factual errors. Their coverage of this event consists of a statement by an anonymous student, an unnamed student's social media comments, and a series of quotes lifted the local Bucks Free Press coverage. Opinions on whether this is a WP:RS news source?

Who "prais[ed] RGS' actions to prevent this occurring again"? Stonewall is said to have "prais[ed] RGS for dealing with concerns quickly" but that's not the same thing.

The question is, again, an unattributed direct quotation. Just source this to the Daily Mail article where the question is given.

The final paragraph needs sourcing, and some of the material appears to be WP:OR. None of the cited sources say anything about whether the material was proof read, or that the maths department strongly encourages students to do these questions, or that these questions are sometimes set as homework. For that matter, does it matter if these types of questions are sometimes set as homework? It would only relevant if this question was set as homework (and it appears not to have been). The statement about the issue blowing up on social media with many outrages students complaining is unsourced and non-neutral.

I have to say that the coverage of controversies in this article seems a bit over the top, and I'm wondering if there is any conflict of interest in play. Anyone editing this article who is a student or has some other conflict of interest should follow WP:COI by declaring their conflict of interest and proposing edits on the talk page. Meters (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed [2]: Posers Homophobic Comment

In September 2016, the RGS distributed a set of maths questions containing a homophobic comment which sparked outrage in students and parents alike. The school made headlines on many news sites including the Daily Mail, The Sun and many LGBT+ news sites. It also prompted the response of several LGBT+ activist groups, many condemning the question, but Stonewall in particular praising RGS' quick actions to deal with this.

The question concerned was as follows: "If in a town 70% of the men are married to 90% of the women (and each marriage is between one man and woman, as God intended when he made humans male and female) what percentage of the adult population are married?"

The questions were produced by a retired teacher who had left the school many years ago, however the questions were distributed by the school's maths department and students of a higher maths ability were encouraged to complete these questions and the sheets (Posers in general) are sometimes set as homework to classes. When the mistake was noticed by students, staff quickly removed all copies from circulation where possible. However the incident quickly blew up on social media, where many outraged users complained.

Bucks Free 'quote': Removed and reworded.

Daily Mail/Sun/Pink News/LGBT Coverage: Site contains list of all sites covering event cited, including other LGBT news sites.

Praising: Stonewall direct mention.

Question: Now Sourced (Huffington)

Final paragraph: Removed Proofreading. Reworded homework (Should I remove this completely?). Sourced social media.

COI: Didn't realise that, I am trying to keep this as unbiased as possible. If there are any bits that seem biased, let me know and I'll try and fix it.

MattIPv4 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

References

User:Meters Should I cite the daily mail & sun, or should they be direct links?

I'll leave them a cites for now. MattIPv4 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any further changes to suggest, I believe all have been covered, so I will add this to the live page in approx 48 hours. MattIPv4 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You are a COI editor, this is a contested edit, and as I've already told you on your talk page I do not consider this version to be acceptable. This version still does not address all the issues I raised. You need to get consensus from other editors before this can go into the article. Lack of response is not consensus. And since you didn't seem to want my participation in this any more you'll have to find other editors to help you, as I also told you on your talk page. I'm tired of wasting time on this. I'm just going to rewrite it to an acceptable form myself. If you want any changes to it you can propose changes properly. Meters (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I believe the edits I've made address all this issues you raised, but if you have more let me know. If you are going to rewrite it, that'd be great, as I presume it can then be added as you were the one who contested it? MattIPv4 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Matt's edit looks fine to me. I removed the COI tag as I am struggling to see it. Is Matt a teacher there? Just being an OW is not enough for COI, besides you need to open a new thread entirely devoted to justifying the existence of a COI tag but unless a teacher or governor has been editing I dont see how we can keep it there. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I restored the COI tag. We don't need a separate thread here to discuss the issue. A connected contributor tag was added to this talk page after a lengthy discussion about COi on his talk page (where he editor eventually declared his COI), and I explicitly told him that I was tagging the page with COI because he was not following the COI rules. Blanking his talk page does not remove the declaration. And yes, being a student at the school can constitute a COI. I wouldn't normally worry about it, but in this case the student was adding unfavourable, non-neutral material to the article and was making statements based on the impressions of the students a the school. Meters (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is he a teacher? And how have his edits affected the page. It doesnt read like a CI article and there dont appear to eb any major contributors, the article has been created by many people. Strikes me one individual claiming COI isnt enough reason to tag this page. Give me some examples of where COI is found in the article right now. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I fonally found the talk page comment, now deleted, you referred to. IMO merely being a student is not evidence of COI so I feel fully justified in having removed the tag. If you have issues with the article focus on the article and not on attacking editors. This COI tag is inappropriate. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, all these allegedly controversial edits took place over 18 months ago so the COI tag as also outdated. Are you going to hijack the article for ever based on old edits from a new user who is merely a student and not a teacher or governor anyway. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not attacking editors. Please WP:AGF. I'm trying to deal with contentious edits to an article. There appeared to be the possibility of a COI so I raised the issue on this talk page. When the editor did not respond I asked him directly on his talk page and he confirmed the COI. And yes, a student who is writing about a contentious issue with his school because he is personalty not satisfied with the school's response has a conflict of interest.

The tag serves as a warning to other editors that there may be COI issues with the content of the article. The tag is justified in my opinion. The named editor restored contentious material less than 5 months ago (not 18 months ago, as you claim), and is still active on the article (I have no concern with the recent edits). An IP with no previous Wikipedia edits appeared this week to restore the named editor's contentious material about the Maths question, and the other contentious material originally added by the named COI editor has previously been restored by him to the article and is still present, so the concern is still valid. Meters (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My last two edits to this page has been adding the names of the houses to the Houses section and citing a section which has since been removed which has nothing to do with the COI. Looking further back, my edits in November 2016 were for the Sixth Form and Entry Requirements sections. My edits in October 2016 were for the Headmaster section and the infobox. All my edits have been factual and keeping the page updated with the latest correct information. So i'm not sure what contentious material you are referring to. MattIPv4 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I also don't recognize the IP or this new editor that you refer to. And what material on the page is still present and contentious? MattIPv4 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now removed the COI tag, see below, and can see no justification for anyone to put it back, a misplaced COI tag if ever I saw one. The idea that students or ex-students such as myself cannot edit their schools articles is ridiculous, teachers and governors however, or ex-teachers and ex-governors, should probably be tasked to a higher standard. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable alumni

I am not happy with just shoving all the notable alumni into a cat, we should illustrate the most notable fo them, which currently includes Grayling, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Who would decide who is the most notable? I would argue that Jimmy Carr is probably of equal notoriety. MattIPv4 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, he can be added. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Timothy Dingle again

I see the Timothy Dingle section has been restored, without addressing all of the issues I previously raised [5], for example, the drug allegations were completely unfounded, so we should not mention them, and terms such as "sacked" are not neutral, particularly when he had already left the school. Note also that the Daily Mail is now generally not accepted as a reliable source. See the RFC on this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC Meters (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maths question again

I've restored the material I recently removed but in a more accurate version (practice material not a test, volunteer not a teacher, more detailed response). The latest version restored by the IP was better than when I first raised the issue [6] but still did not address all of the problems. I'm not convinced this belongs in the article at all, but since it was restored by yet another different editor let's at least start with an accurate version. Meters (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

COI

One using claiming COI for a few edits by a pupil 5 months ago is not sufficient justification. And we do not COI tags to warn off others frome diting as if we don't want people editing ehre. I will take this to an admin board if you persist in this deply mistaken tagging. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: another user has again flagged the page as COI due to my contributions, could you take a look to ensure it is still neutral? MattIPv4 (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't appear to be employed by the RGS, based on your user page. Are you? Ex-students from there (including me) don't have COI for contributing, even heavily. I also notice that @SovalValtos: re-added the tag without explaining themselevs here first, and for that reaosn alone I would revert but its already been removed. SovalValtos, please explain your inclusion of the COI tage here, if you add it again without explanation you will be reported. And please do understand that ex-students can edit without having a COI, as with all educational instituion articles. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not employed but am a current student (three weeks left). Does that change anything? I am being careful with my edits to ensure they are sourced and neutral. Where there are issues, content is being proposed on this talk page (as below), per the instructions given on COI cases. MattIPv4 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I am pleased to see MattIPv4 has made a CoI declaration for this article. I had not seen it when I added the tag but removed it as soon as I did.SovalValtos (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO being a current student isn't a COI, being a teacher is, or an ex headmaster. However, if you can point out a place in our COI policy talking about this I'd be interested to read and we could always go to the COI noticeboard for clarification. Being a student does not mean one os going to love the school, or even hate it. I'd also be interested in seeing any diffs where Matt's edits seem to be non-NPOV, which to my mind is typical COI. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831002659/http://www.uel.ac.uk/about/history.htm to http://www.uel.ac.uk/about/history.htm

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) 09:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New, modernised crest

I have uploaded the newer crest pulled from the RGSHW.com website. The version I've used only features the crown, the prominent feature of the crest.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on whether this (crown only) version should be used or the full version with the school name and date on it? MattIPv4 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@MattIPv4: First is the licensing issue. This is not your work, if you pulled it from the website. It will need moved to en.wiki and identified as non-free content.

Second, the crest should be used in its entire form, since it's a form of identification. (The crown itself is probably under Crown copyright, rather than the school's copyright.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the website, the text is part of the crest. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred Ah yeah, had absolutely zero idea how to go about uploading it any other way, I just made use of the default image uploader. Please do upload correctly and in full. I couldn’t find a raster version of the full crest, the one I pulled is the favicon for the site. MattIPv4 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@MattIPv4: I grabbed a bitmap from the website to make sure it complied with the low-res rules. File:Royal Grammar School High Wycombe new crest 2018.png now exists on en.wiki. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you for the help! MattIPv4 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Chris Date

Does anyone have any objections or thoughts on adding Christopher J. Date to the notable alumni section of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattIPv4 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

SLST

Jeans4Genes

SovalValtos raised the concern that the statement in the SLST section regarding providing services for the Jeans4Genes was unsourced. The current proposed sources are the team's YouTube channel playlist for the event https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL58EAE56B7ED5EA76 as well as a letter from the school's headmaster making reference to the Jeans4Genes performance https://www.rgshw.com/_site/data/files/documents/letters%20to%20parents/school%20comms/1903D12DBC48D52139312411F8544FD4.pdf - There was concern that the playlist isn't a reliable source but I believe in tandem with the letter, these are good sources for the statement? MattIPv4 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed content

The team provides lighting for school events (such as concerts and Jeans 4 Genes) and sound for assemblies whilst also being a prominent contributor to the school's drama scene with the annual school production, such as the March 2019 production of West Side Story.

One of the proposed 'sources' (Youtube) is not a reliable source and there is no support for all the proposed text. So not agreed.SovalValtos (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why in this situation is the playlist regarded as not reliable? The articles yo had previously linked about video sources implied that they could be used if deemed reliable, so I'm curious as to why in this situation it isn't reliable when backed up by the secondary source? MattIPv4 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RichardWeiss Any thoughts on this, what could be done to ensure accuracy and correct sourcing here? MattIPv4 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

West Side Story

Why was the source for the production of west side story removed? It was the source to confirm that the event occurred within the school. No publications ever make reference to the team as this is not something the school does, however the letter is a good source that the production did occur? MattIPv4 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

MattIPv4Please link difs when you mention an edit such as 'the source for the production of west side story removed' above so we know to what you refer. In my edit summary for the edit[7] to the 'Stage Lighting and Sound Team' section I said "Removing source with no mention of SLST" As the material the source was purporting to source " team is a prominent contributor to the school's drama scene" was not found in the source I replaced it with a Cit request. A simple mention to a production might be included in another section if considered notable.

I suspect these issues arise from your wanting to write about the subject in a particular way due to your CoI and then starting looking for sources afterwards. A better way would be to find sources mentioning Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe SLST, such as in Newspapers or Stage magazines first, and then write your summary of the source. Wikipedia is not interested in what people or organisations say about themselves.SovalValtos (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: As stated above, there are generally no publications made that make reference to this team. I do not believe CoI is an issue here, I simply believe that the activity this team has with the production the school puts on in association with other schools should be referenced as it is a key part of the team's job within the school? MattIPv4 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

When you MattIPv4 say 'I simply believe that the activity this team has with the production the school puts on in association with other schools should be referenced' I think you are meaning 'mentioned' rather than referenced (sourced). Please clarify. If there are "no publications made that make reference to this team" then IMO that is a good reason for not including the material because WP:V requires it to be referenced (sourced). Again your CoI looks to be leading you to think SLST is notable when no sources have been found to show that it is. It is easier to edit articles where you have no personal connection.SovalValtos (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References