Talk:Summerhill School

Centennial

I'm thinking about having a go at rewriting this article for Summerhill's 100th anniversary. Struggling a bit with finding contemporary sources (most are historical) if anyone has recommendations.

• Turner, Christopher (March 28, 2014). "A Conversation About Happiness, review – a childhood at Summerhill". The Guardian. Retrieved March 27, 2021.

czar 02:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

STEM

Have many of Summerhill's alumni gone on to excel in the STEM area? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC).

No response. So I guess that the answer is none. There is an insightful article on the pros and cons of progressive education by Miriam Gross.[1] Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC).

The school isn't particularly known for generating luminaries, if that's what you mean. There is a book called https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/summerhill-alumni-what-we-learnt-school-scandal-2373066.html After Summerhill] that documents the lives of some alumni, if interested. czar 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I see one person with success in STEM, which shows that with natural ability, favorable family background and persistence the handicap of a non-academic education can be overcome. Miriam Gross is another case. I guess that the school has a reputation for producing laid-back lotus-eaters, but people with enough ability and persistence can break through to the educational mainstream. I suspect that some alumni without enough of those qualities or a lack of luck may resent the inadequate education that handicapped them. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC).

(Self?) promotion of unknown person

A couple of times User:Kingfisherhide has included the claim that a film about the school has been made by an "independent film-maker" The justification recently given by this editor - who has only a short track record with Wikipedia - is as follows:...

>>I believe it is relevant to include "independent filmmaker" because Chadwick was not commissioned by a broadcaster, like we assign the CBBC series to CBBC, to give the reader the whole information it is worth saying it was an independent production!

This is (no doubt unintentionally) deceptive. For all we know this film about the school is a promotional exercise, perhaps even funded and made by the school itself - the only source given is the film's own website , rather than reviews or other secondary ("independent") sources.

It is perhaps notable that in the source given (the promotional website for the film) Chadwick writes:

>>Both my parents were teachers at Summerhill before the war. My father was A.S.Neill's secretary

This suggests a possible COI.

As to Peter Chadwick himself, there is no information about him or the film even in the less than reliable IMDB. So it is unlikely Chadwick has made more than this one (perhaps puff) film for the school. Even IMDB only lists people called Peter Chadwick with small-scale and/or low-level jobs in the film and tv business: there is no suggestion of a Peter Chadwick who makes films in the sense that is implied by the phrase "independent film-maker".

One promotional film - however well-intentioned and sincerely crafted - does not really deserve much attention and it is hard to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. It is also - given COI as above - unlikely to be "independent" of the school.

Given the limited sourcing I suggest only a minimal mention for the time being, with no inflation of the individual behind it, while we await further (and better) sources.

95.145.170.13 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I find it unusual and uncalled for that you (who is editing not even from a proper wikipedia account, instead an IP address from which this is your only edit), are accusing me of self-promotion. For one thing, I am not Peter Chadwick, born multiple decades after him, and you have no evidence at all to base this unfounded claim against a user. You seem to come at this from a bias viewpoint, presuming ulterior motives by the school, suggesting they have funded this documentary and not declared that. This isn't true. As a filmmaker myself, documentary films, many types of films, are made about topics close to the creators own life, as people feel motivated to share about things that matter to them. Nonetheless, this is a conflict of interest you find with the objectivity of the film, not the film as a source. It is also worth noting that (as mentioned in the film) Chadwick's parents taught at the school over half a century ago, and therefore anyone at the school at present is highly unlikely to have had any close relationship with his family. I do not know how much you know about filmmaking, but you seem to misunderstand what an independent filmmaker is. An independent filmmaker is anyone who makes a film independently that is produced outside of major commissioners/studios. Anyone can be an independent filmmaker, if you make a film off your own prerogative and then publish that/make it viewable to an audience, you are technically an independent filmmaker. It is not a title that "inflates" an individual, or requires any experience at all in film and TV (although this is obviously advantageous in terms of knowing how to use kit and generally make a film), it is simply factual. It is also clear from both what Chadwick has said and other information about the film, and most certainly the method of distribution, that this is an independent production. You have no evidence that this is promotional film, in fact Chadwick himself states that he is not connected to the school on the films website (https://howsummerhillworks.com/contact), so what you are suggesting is an unevidenced conspiracy you have made up yourself, the second after (incorrectly) trying to presume my identity. It is worthy of inclusion on the wikipedia as it is a piece of media made about the school, and the only media I am aware of that shows the school in the last decade. I would recommend against attacks of a personal nature against someones credibility and integrity, I don't particularly appreciate you suggesting that my relatively short experience of wikipedia editing (which is actually longer than yours), makes me unqualified, or your insinuation that I have repeatedly tried to insert false information to (apparently) serve my own gain, which I have fundamentally not done, and it is infact you who is evidentially wrong. Kingfisherhide (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It would appear we are at stalement. Therefore I have opened a WP:3O, see: WP:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements 95.145.170.13 (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, here to give a third opinion. At first glance I was going to say that I thought the whole mention of the film was indeed on shaky ground, because the only source given was the film's website, whereas I agree that there should really be an independent, reliable source covering the film. However, Kingfisherhide, you're in luck, because I found an article from what appears to be a respected local newspaper on it. To me, that's enough to justify the existing brief mention in this article. If both of you agree, we could add a reference to that newspaper article and call ourselves satisfied. Mesocarp (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That’s a useful article and a good source, as you say. I agree with your suggestion and propose we use the descriptor provided in the article of “local film-maker” rather than the disputed “independent film-maker” phrase which could be misunderstood.

Incidentally I see I am now writing from an IP which ends in 91 but am the same editor who ended in 13 before, apologies for any confusion.

95.145.170.91 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused as to why you are so against the descriptor of independent filmmaker. It's not a disputed phrase, it's a commonly used descriptor, you just misunderstood what it meant, it's well defined in magazines and dictionaries and the genre has its own wikipedia page. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I'm just saying why I plan to leave it in, as it is a well-defined and commonly used descriptor that's factual and doesn't suggest any of the writer's personal opinion about the filmmaker. And yep, I'll add that source, thank you for your third opinion Mesocarp it's appreciated! Kingfisherhide (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mesocarp, are you still on this? Here are a few comments for discussion, it would be good to have your input:--

- User:Kingfisherhide, it would be helpful if you would not write as if you owned any part of this article (that not being compatible with Wiki ways of doing things). You are not in a position to "plan to leave it in" as there is currently no consensus.

- The term is not disputed in the sense you have it. Its use in the context of this article is however disputed by me, apologies if that was not clear.

- User:Kingfisherhide's reference to Independent film supports the case that the phrase "independent film-maker" is an overclaim in this context. The article makes clear that the term applies primarily to people like (from the very beginning to the very end of the cited article) Tarantino to Coppola. That is what I meant by the phrase “independent film-maker” being open to misinterpretation. From my own experience, when it comes to documentary (about which there is not much in the cited article) the phrase "independent film-maker" tends to mean someone with substantial artistic and/or political ambitions for their work.

- Whereas the newspaper article (the only source we can currently rely on) makes clear that this has been made by someone just at or only slightly ahead of amateur status / local film club film-making / that sort of thing, who is linked to the school and, unless there is a source to the contrary, has been responsible for what is no doubt a nice bit of promotion for a commercially-run school. There is no evidence that even local papers have reviewed the "film", never mind it being invited to documentary festivals or such like.

- In summary, "local" is accurate whereas "independent" has the potential to be misunderstood (and could be thought to justify the suspicion articulated in the headline of this Talk section).

- Incidentally (and off the point) this is in the main a pretty duff article and could use more and better sources throughout, as well as more objective writing. Are the tags sufficient to get it cleaned up?

95.145.170.91 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I said I planned to leave it in, as in when I edited the article to add the newspaper source, no more than that? I was in no way saying that I would enforce it was permanently left in, because that would obviously be wrong. I also don't see how I've made any suggestion that I own the article, because obviously I don't? It's impossible to prove a negative, there is no evidence at all that the school funded this film or proposed the idea, and Chadwick has said he isn't linked with the school and I can't see any benefit to him or the school to lie about funding the film. I only asked why you were against the independent filmmaker descriptor, as it does fit that descriptor, the article mentions people like tarantino, but does also talk about how an independent film is any film made out of the major studio system and is often made with a very small budget and general production. As I had said, this was not intended to start an argument I genuinely just wanted to hear what you had to say. And talking of the headline, it is explicitly against the wikipedia rules to speculate on the real identity of an editor, and as I have pointed out, the descriptor of independent filmmaker is not a complement/something that inflates a filmmaker, it's just a benign descriptor, so it doesn't justify the suspicion you had that I was Chadwick for some reason self-promoting.

I can't really comment on the wider article as I had no part in writing any of it except for this bit, but you could well be right, I'll have a look and see if I can find any sources to strengthen the article. Kingfisherhide (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster has "not affiliated with a larger controlling unit" for independent, giving the example of "independent bookstore," which seems like a reasonable sense to apply here to me (it doesn't say anything about prominence, as a side note). I think looking to a dictionary is going to put us on firmer ground than trying to argue over another Wikipedia article. Given the definition, it might be inappropriate to describe Chadwick an independent filmmaker if he had made the film under the school's auspices, but we have no evidence of that, since the newspaper article doesn't say it and Chadwick actively says he didn't. So, I think the evidence we have supports describing him as "independent." I think "local" would be fine too, since the newspaper article says that, but I don't see any active reason to change the text as it currently stands. 95.145.170.91, if you can find a reliable source showing that Chadwick did make the film for hire, I think then you would have a strong case. Mesocarp (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This is good, thank you, and has prompted me to use the hive mind of the internet, as to me (with experience of different kinds of film and tv production) the phrase “independent film-maker” means something rather more than simply a film-maker who is independent. However the hive produced some rather different results, high up in Google searches.

Here are two reputable general references, one from long ago (in internet terms) and one contemporary, which seek to define what an independent film-maker is:

• New York Times from 1986
• Masterclass in 2021

So on the evidence that the phrase “independent film-maker” has established itself as covering different kinds of people making very many different kinds of film (and so it can fairly be described as an ambiguous phrase) I should withdraw my objection to this description being used in the article. However do we like Wikipedia using ambiguous terms, phrases that do not clearly describe something but imply a variety of different interpretations (in this case from local film-maker to, as above, the director of The Godfather)? I suggest Kingfisherhide should justify why the unambiguous phrase “local film-maker” is not acceptable and I propose “local independent film-maker” as an improvement.

95.145.170.91 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I described him as an independent filmmaker to show that the film was not made for a larger organisation, like the cbbc series was made for cbbc. I have no objections to local being added! Kingfisherhide (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Me either. I went ahead and edited the page to that effect since I was the last one out. Sounds like we're all happy! ^^ Mesocarp (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

👍

95.145.170.91 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

95.145.170.91 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

95.145.170.91 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Local filmmaker", per the provided reliable source, seems more than sufficient here. "Independent" is assumed. This is a minor point overall, since all that really needs to be said here is that it's another independent documentary about Summerhill, one of several. The filmmaker's name need not even be mentioned once this section is cleaned up. czar 02:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

👍

95.145.170.91 (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, even if you might think "independent" is assumed and not worth mentioning, Kingfisherhide seems to feel fairly strongly that it is, and 95.145.170.91 at least started out genuinely concerned that Chadwick might not be independent, so I'm not sure it's so clear-cut. I would also hesitate to describe it as a minor point in the context of this article, since it took up 2–3 days of active discussion which is now about half of the talk page. I myself was rather surprised at how much work it took for us to come an agreement on it, given how much you might think it would be an innocuous matter, but I think we should go with what we can observe rather than what we can intuit with things like this.

On the same basis, I have no particular stake in what this article might look like when "cleaned up," but I feel like it would be worth keeping an open mind about given the discussion we just had. I suppose I'm not taking a position right now as to content, just making a plea for understanding and goodwill—I was very happy when we reached a harmonious conclusion and it would make me sad to check back here in a week and see that the same passage was again a source of conflict. Mesocarp (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

👍 95.145.170.91 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)