Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design

Teacher

Looking at the recent news article, it is plain that the teacher saying "“Even from her class I could name 10 people more deserving either for merit or financial need or both,” is making a political statement. He is not unbiased, and NPOV requires that we also point this out. We can't quote his opinion as if he were stating an objective fact. I'm against any further mention on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Half the article about an educational institution is about one student. --Pete (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pete you've been around long enough to know that NPOV does not mean the references have to be NPOV. All that is required is that they are reliable and you can't get any more reliable than the Sydney Morning Herald. AlanS (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've included the statement by Ian Tudor in the material. I hope that satisfies you. AlanS (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Kindly read what I wrote above and respond to the point raised. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV - "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." and I wasn't presenting what the teacher was saying as fact. I quoted him and provided Ian Tudor's response to the teacher's accusation. What exactly do see wrong with the inclusion of the material? Oh and before you throw around accusations of edit warring, I'll remind you that you've performed two reverts now and myself only one (and I only reverted with the inclusion of additional information in the material so that it was clear the words of the teacher are their opinion alone). AlanS (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD contains an accepted method of improving an article. You were Bold, I Reverted, We Discuss. We find consensus. My problem with your edit is what I am now stating for a third time. Presenting the teacher as unbiased when the source clearly shows he is not is both NPOV and misrepresentation. The source is fine. Twisting the source to give a different interpretation is not. You do see this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"The teacher of Abbott who had leaked to the media about her being awarded the scholarship questioned whether she was worthy of a merit scholarship, stating that there were "10 people more deserving either for merit or financial need or both" out of Abbott's classmates. Whitehouse chief executive Ian Tudor has stated that the awarding of the scholarship was "discretionary and based on merit"." How's that then? AlanS (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as an accurate portrayal of the source. It gives an incorrect impression. I think we should aim higher. Besides having more than half of an article be about one student is undue weight. --Pete (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How would you word it? As per undue, we've been over this Pete. Given how much it has been in the media it's probably the only thing most Australians know the school for and not having this material included when it so goes directly to the point of why the saga is even a story would be deliberately leaving something out. AlanS (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm not going to waste any more time until you accept the point made in the first post in this section. --Pete (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That the teacher has agenda to push. No shit. NPOV does not require sources be neutral and quoting someone is not necessarily presenting what they are saying as fact. How you take 'questioned whether she was worthy of a merit scholarship, stating that there were "10 people more deserving either for merit or financial need or both" ' as a statement of fact by me is perverse. It is clearly not a statement of fact it is clearly the quoted opinion of an individual, an individual who does not have to be NPOV in order for them to be quoted. AlanS (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Presenting a biased source - the teacher - as objective is the problem here. I've noticed a repeated behaviour of yours to accept political spin as fact. If a newspaper article reports on a political conflict, repeating the views of one side only and then claiming an NPOV source. That's not how it works. We present both sides. Better yet the views of an independent commentator, rather than two sets of spin. Or - as you prefer - one set of spin.

1. Melletios Kyriakidis - the teacher - claims he has political beliefs, and was discriminated against by the "Liberal-linked" Whitehouse for them. He has included Tony Abbott in his lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.
2. The scholarship was awarded in 2011 and yet MK waited until May this year to leak the story. He resigned in June, but is now claiming wrongful dismissal.
3. MK says he was “morally outraged” by the waiving of Ms Abbott’s tuition fees, particularly given the government’s plans to increase the cost of degrees.
4. He questioned whether Mr Abbott’s daughter was worthy of a merit scholarship, saying while she was a hard-working “high achiever” who got a distinction for portfolio design, “there were a lot more people more deserving [of a scholarship]”.

Frances Abbott's tuition fees weren't waived; she got a merit-based scholarship, according to all reliable sources. Even MK says she was a hard-working “high achiever” who got a distinction for portfolio design. His beef seems to be that other students were "more deserving" on financial grounds. That's not how merit works. Merit is merit, not inverse bank balance.

The only way MK gets his story to work is by claiming that FA wasn't worthy of a merit-based scholarship. The way I'm seeing it is that he is using FA as a tool to achieve political ends in getting his story as much publicity as possible, and personal ends in trying to gain compensation for "wrongful dismissal" when he in fact resigned. In fact, it looks to me very much like a stunt to gain publicity, including naming the Prime Minister in his suit.

I don't think that we should be presenting MK's biased opinions as objective fact. Nor do I think that this already lopsided article needs more material based on no more than opinion, particularly when legal proceedings are under way. MK's case will be heard on Tuesday. This event took place in 2011, but you see an urgent need to get MK's opinions into the article. I suspend discussion for a few hours - at night, so I can go to sleep - and you are again edit-warring, claiming Doesn't seem like you're so interested in the discussion part of WP:BRD.

I've repeatedly pointed out that we shouldn't present MK's biased claims as objective statements, but none of your alternate wordings acknowledges this misrepresentation, nor do you acknowledge the point in discussion. It's as if you can't see the problem. In the end, it's MK making a personal attack against FA by claiming she wasn't worthy of her merit scholarship, so there's a BLP question there. We source BLP issues as a matter of crucial importance, and it's important that we present any BLP matters fairly. Just reporting one side of the story isn't enough.

I predict that you want to go to 3RR over this, and that you are going to claim that your edits aren't reversions because you've changed the wording slightly each time, while retaining the elements - namely the misrepresentation and bias - that I objected to in the first place. Well, lots of luck with that approach. --Pete (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me presenting the teachers words as fact, I have clearly not done so in any ways I've worded it (to try and get some sort of agreement out of you). The fact of the matter is that you just plain don't like the material. The fact is that you are gaming WP:BRD to try and ensure it is not included. Please explain how directly quoting someone and then providing an alternative response is making a statement of fact. Oh and for the record you don't see many distinction students getting scholarships which are presented on the basis of merit alone. AlanS (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS, you'd do better if you didn't project your opinions onto me. You are just plain wrong in your surmises above. Nobody's gaming BRD; I wanted some discussion and more opinions. That's fine, that's the way we work. What doesn't work is one editor deciding that they are right in all their opinions and Wikipedia must reflect their views immediately. Slow down, get more views on a problem. We're an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper.

What is emerging is that this thing was a stunt for political motives. MK, a part-time teacher with tangential connection to FA, arranged for selective material to be hacked and leaked to a leftwing website. He's in court today and his accomplice is facing criminal charges.[1] It boils down to his opinion on a student's worthiness for a scholarship versus those who actually awarded it. Should we give his openly biased opinion the same weight as the school administration? I don't think so. If we mention his opinion I think we should also give an indication of where he's coming from so as not to mislead our readers into thinking that he holds any sort of neutral or objective view. Should we mention the story at all? It's now comprising most of the article. That's undue weight, IMHO. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And why isn't the heading for this section all the way over on the left like it should be? It's annoying. AlanS (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dunno. I hit the "new section" button. That's how it came out. Accept it. I have. --Pete (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

My OCD doesn't like it. AlanS (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

...nor mine. There was an incorrect (open) blockquote tag in the previous section, gobbling up the rest of the page, so I fixed it. Begoon ^talk 09:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Skyring, you're placing a very original twist on this information that doesn't fit with the coverage in reliable sources. This is a well-reported part of the story in an unchallengeable source, and "I don't like it" doesn't feature in Wikipedia's content guidelines. I am really over the fact we're still having to argue about this thoroughly boring story. The teacher's comments need to be mentioned; they need to not be given undue weight; and Skyring's persistent attempts on twisting an interpretation out of the sources which none of them take in the terms he wants to need to reel the hell back in. I will also point out that there are currently zero sources actually cited in the article for anyone claiming the scholarship was awarded on merit apart from the Prime Minister's media spokesperson. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Skyring really still fighting this... Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. AlanS (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think there is consensus here to keep the information in, judging from the comments. Skyring, "We can't quote his opinion as if he were stating an objective fact"--no, but we can quote his opinion. I don't want to warn you for edit warring, but I think one more of these reverts against consensus will lead to a block.

  Your UNDUE concerns aren't far-fetched, though: this article is simply in terrible condition and needs expansion. If all the editors who invested their time and energy in keeping this section in would spend a bit of time working on the rest of the article... Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I know a lot about politics and bugger all about design. I don't think what's there is undue weight considering the coverage of this affair in reliable sources trumps everything else in the institution's history combined, though I agree that any more than a sentence or two more than what's there to keep it up to date would cross that line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to say, though, Drmies raises something that was nagging at me ever since I looked at this article. If 60%(ish) of the article about this "Institute" relates to one political incident, what does the article appear to be for, other than a hook to hang the incident on? When the putative information-seeking reader comes here to find out about this place, should 60% of what we tell them be about a current political spat? Is that a fair representation of what this establishment is, to someone hoping to find out? Because that's what an article should be. Is there more we can say about the establishment, to reduce the skew? If not, how do we address what could easily be perceived as looking like a WP:COATRACK concern? I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't have that content anywhere, but it does look a bit imbalanced if you stand back and look at the article as an item. Begoon ^talk 17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if more could be said for the institution so that the article doesn't look like dominated by the scholarship story. Unfortunately I don't think there is a hell of a lot more out there to add (aside from scholarship stuff) and I think reducing the material about the scholarship would really be removing pertinent content. AlanS (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It isn't a WP:COATRACK situation because the article long predates the affair, and the institution has inherent notability as a degree-granting institution as confirmed by the AfD. The problem that we have is that ultimately, in terms of the reliable sources relating to the institution, this affair is much more notable than the institution itself. I would prefer about the current content (unless someone can beef up the content on the institution, which is very welcome) but will rapidly become in favour of a separate article if Drmies' very bad solution below is the only alternative. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I understand that the article was pre-existing, that's why I was circumspect in my language. Still, a coat may be hung on a rack regardless of when, or why, the rack was created. Begoon ^talk 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Of course we can quote the teacher's opinion Drmies, but stripping away the caveats that are found in the source(s) misleads the reader. MK, the person who leaked the story to a left-wing website, was a part-time staff member who had a political agenda. He didn't even teach FA for her major classes. There's more to the drama but let's see what the civil and criminal court hearings produce. Thanks for the warning not to revert against consensus. Not something I'd do anyway; my strategy is always to get more eyes on a topic and more discussion going. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Begoon, I have the feeling I looked at this article before, a couple of weeks or months ago, and I have the feeling I had that same feeling then. Odd. Obviously this scandal is all over Google--but I found nothing in Google News or in Google Books. Pete, I really don't like laying the law down, and I see you accepted my note in the spirit in which I intended it--thanks. Begoon, someone (obviously not me since I was unsuccessful) needs to expand this article, or yeah, "coatrack" is a valid charge. I wrote a BLP a few years ago on a US politician, corrupt as dirt, and found nothing good to say on the man, but at least I had some basic information to build a biography with. In the end, it ran for DYK with a "negative" hook, but it was nothing like this one (plus it wasn't just one scandal). Drmies (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Heh. It's funny, isn't it, Drmies? You have the feeling you had that feeling, and I have that feeling too. I can't expand it on a brief look. Funny thing is, contrary to what I often feel, in the great, glorious expansionist scheme of things, I'm not sure it really needs expanding. It's a little article about a little school, which is really 4 lines long, and was comfortably 4 lines long till there was a political spat of some sort. But it's ended up ten lines long. And full of political stuff. Call me old fashioned, but I'm thinking, maybe it needs to be 4 lines long, like it always was, plus a note, of about a line length or something about this "in the news" stuff. Weight, long term significance, neutrality, balance and all that. Begoon ^talk 21:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
        • What they really need is a sports and intercollegiate program and a wrestling team and a band, like every self-respecting US high school, and we could fill pages and pages. Yeah, it's a small school, but it also seems to be selective and elite--and maybe even half-way decent, so one would expect some more coverage. OK. So maybe trimming this down, and leaving one single sentence for the "scandal", is what we need to do. I don't know if that's what I want, but given the paucity of sources... Drmies (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
          • If they had a sports and intercollegiate problem and a wrestling team and a band that would be wonderful because we wouldn't be having this discussion, but they don't. It is the thing the school is most well known for, and will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future, there is nowhere else to put it, and the mainstream, dedicated coverage has now been going on for months. I think in these circumstances making sure the content on the affair doesn't *exceed* the rest of it is a fair compromise (not to compare the morality of the organisation with Drmies' politician example, but the state of the reliable sources is exactly the same), but if we start talking one sentence in this article then we invariably need to start a conversation about spinning the affair out into its own article, which I think is a bad alternative. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Agreed. AlanS (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
            • No, limiting this content does not mean it should be spun off into its own article--quite the opposite. Sure there are reliable sources, but saying that this is the only thing the school is notable for is adopting a very limited view. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is already an informal RfC. As suggested below, it may be helpful to some editors to make it more formal, so that they receive a notification on their talk page. Always nice to get something in the mail, and we may bring more to the party.

Briefly, the Whitehouse Institute of Design is a small private educational institution. The short article (7 lines and an infobox) lasted from November 2012 to May 2014 before an allegation arose that the daughter of then Opposition Leader (now Prime Minister) Tony Abbott had received a $60 000 scholarship which he had failed to declare on his parliamentary register of interests. School staff issued statements that the scholarship was awarded to Frances Abbott on merit. Such scholarships are not seen as gifts and are not required to be registered.

Most of the article now deals with allegations made against one student. Drmies commenced discussion below on the issue of weight. Comments on how to handle the coverage of this issue in this article are invited. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To do away with POV, UNDUE, BLAHBLAHBLAH, and NOTRELEVANT, we should trim the article of its scandalous content, giving this scandal no more than one sentence (possibly two independent clauses with a semi-colon: it's the principle that counts)--unless someone quickly beefs up the content about the actual school, so that the scandal occupies no more than 15% (random percentage) of the article. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes or no, briefly

• Yes - Notability of schools should be on a wider view. Its importance to the community, courses offered, basic information and so on. Having the majority of the article deal with one student is inappropriate. If the thing is relevant to the student, it belongs in the BLP - if the student is notable. If it is a true scandal, it deserves its own article. Hanging this off a stub article is an excellent example of WP:COATRACK. --Pete (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Trim the article per Pete. It's undue and not relevant. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, as per mine and TDW's arguments found below. AlanS (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, by now, trim, per my and Drmies' comments/concerns above. The article is unbalanced towards one current news event, and there are arguments about the significance of that news "event" even now, when it's current. Its long term significance is likely to be close to nothing at all, as these things go. Devoting 60% of an article about a school to a single political tiff is disproportionate, undue and unseemly. This is an encyclopedia, not a current events blog. An encyclopedia reader seeking information about the school should be served with information about the school - not a blow by blow update on how the school has been used as a political football. They can find that content in newspapers or political blogs. Sure, a brief reference, but what we have now is ludicrously unbalanced. Begoon ^talk 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - I agree with @Skyring: that schools should be on a wider views. CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• [Insert your yes or no here. Sign on the dotted line.] ...

Discussion

Given that this is what the institute is most notable for at present, has been for some months and is likely to continue to be so for a significant period of time into the future I don't believe the current proportions are particularly WP:UNDUE. AlanS (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be horribly inappropriate. There is a lack of reliable sources about other aspects of this institution, there are abundant, highly reliable sources on this affair over a period of time, which warrants more than a sentence. It also invariably starts a discussion about having a separate article on the affair, which I think is a worse solution but becomes necessary if it is cut to a sentence here. We have a situation not incomparable to that of your politician above; while I'm not remotely comparing the morality of the situation, if the vast majority of the reliable sources about a thing refer to something negative, reducing discussion of negative things to one sentence is not an appropriate outcome. This affair is something now abundantly covered over quite a period of time in indisputably reliable sources, and while it is not something I find in any way interesting, it needs to be covered; intentionally downplaying something that badly to which something like 75% (though that's probably an underestimate) of the reliable sources on this institution refer is completely unjustifiable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Horribly inappropriate even! Hey, we're not talking about infecting babies with ebola or something like that. What you're saying actually makes this seem even more UNDUE: "we can't say much about the school, but we can say tons about the scandal". But the real question you and others should ask yourself is, to which extent is this scandal actually about the school? And what will you gain, encyclopedically, by having more than half of this article being about something else? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to discuss undue weight, but when you have an institution that doesn't have a lot of reliable sources about it, and a significant affair concerning the institution which has a lot of reliable sources about it, the answer is to find a good balance between the two, and one sentence is not even on the same continent as "balance". One sentence on the thing the institution is most known for is a coverage that has no claim to being "encyclopedic". The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is a political stunt, concocted and spun out of proportion to the facts. Frances Abbott received a scholarship. We have no evidence that there was anything scandalous or underhanded about its award. Whitehouse Institute says it was based on merit, Leanne Whitehouse made the determination, nobody is saying that FA was anything but an excellent student. I'm against giving this stunt any more exposure than needed. Having most of the article being speculation about one student is just ridiculous. Now, if we find out that there was actually something untoward went on, then we can cover a genuine story. But if that were the case, it would be a genuine scandal with wide well-sourced media coverage and deserving of its own article. --Pete (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is wide well-sourced media coverage, although I personally wouldn't call it a "genuine scandal". It's not up to "us" to debate the issue; we cover, appropriately, what the reliable sources have to say, and there's too much detailed, reliable, mainstream coverage for such a limited approach. Personally, I really don't care if Abbott's daughter got a scholarship, but there's too much been mainstream coverage and concern about the issue to warrant a one-sentence treatment here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wide and well-sourced? Look at what we have. One man's biased opinion. That's the guts of it. --Pete (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. The teacher's opinion is not even contained in what's being proposed to remove here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Be nice. I'm talking about the entirety of the story since it surfaced back in May. It all goes back to Melletios Kyriakidis and his biased opinion, trying to make a story out of nothing much. Everything else is a reaction. The school administration says the scholarship, awarded three years earlier, was awarded on merit. Do we have any hard evidence to the contrary? We do not. So why are we including speculation in our encyclopaedia? --Pete (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For some context, the last and only other time this scholarship was awarded was to Whitehouse's son (you can find that easily on matilda). AlanS (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There you go again. Opinion, innuendo, synthesis. The only hard fact we have is that the top staff all say the discretionary scholarship was awarded on merit. More than half the article is now pushing a biased opinion based on nothing concrete. Our readers deserve a higher standard of encyclopaedia.

If something emerges - a phone call, a letter, an eyewitness statement, a confession - that proves the scholarship was awarded in an act of cronyism or quid pro quo or whatever, then it's a genuine scandal and it has a place here. Given recent events involving bottles of expensive wine, a $60K scholarship could be something really big. I wouldn't rule it out.

But we don't have anything like that. We have an opinion expressed by a part-time teacher - of media studies, not design - having tangential involvement with Frances Abbott. He concocted the story for political purposes and it is not Wikipedia's place to give this stunt any traction. Not without some facts. --Pete (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a very unique tale. I look forward to you providing WP:RS for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I'm not sure what you mean here. --Pete (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your last two posts above are a rather unique reading of the situation. Where are the sources to support that? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You said that. Could you indicate your concerns more precisely, please? --Pete (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of events is one I have not seen in any reliable source, and which may well border on the defamatory. You are arguing that we should make editorial decisions on the basis of said interpretation of events, and I'm suggesting that you back it up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still in the dark. Could you indicate your concern more precisely? Perhaps a sentence that you find troublesome? We can look at that and perhaps light will dawn. Perhaps this will help explain what informs my view. (Later) This is behind a paywall, but if you search on "Sydney police are understood to have followed the trail of how confidential student information ended up in the hands of Graham and Ms Bacon" you may get the full version. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a little bit more sense. Nonetheless, I don't think one can exactly dismiss bucketloads of mainstream media coverage because the dude who tipped the first media outlet off (surprise) wasn't an Abbott fan. Notability doesn't quite work that way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not about notability. It's not even about political sides. It's about sourcing. Follow it all down, and the whole story is one person's all but baseless view, since contradicted by the school management. Why are we giving this more legs than it deserves? --Pete (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of it, and we don't give your version legs because it isn't backed up by the sources. Your link above demonstrated that the original source was the teacher, but the whole drama has been about media and public concern about the facts that emerged as a result; the original whistleblower's actual views didn't even become part of the story until very late in the game. Suggesting that this is "one person's all but baseless view" is a unique attempt at reinterpreting a swathe of detailed media coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's about the media and reaction, then it's a stunt. Why should we cover stunts? Does this add to the school's article? From the school's point of view, they awarded a scholarship to a student. Big deal. Schools award scholarships on a regular basis and they are not part of our articles about them. The only notable fact is that the recipient was the daughter of a popular politician. If we cover the political story at all, cover it where it is appropriate: in an article about politics. --Pete (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Literally no one is calling this a stunt but you, so no, I don't think that should be a relevant editorial consideration. The notable fact was that the scholarship was awarded under controversial circumstances that were the subject of a bucketload of detailed coverage in unquestionably reliable sources. That you don't agree that it should be controversial is neither here nor there; we base our articles on the state of the sources, not on the opinions of editors. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't awarded under controversial circumstances. It was three years before it became a story, and as you yourself note, "the whole drama has been about media and public concern". It's about the story, not the facts, which are less than notable. Student gets a scholarship - that's the guts of it. The "whole drama" has been about one section of political thought trying to spin it into a scandal. It's about innuendo and synthesis and very little in the way of facts.

1. Frances Abbott, daughter of senior politician, attends Whitehouse Institute of Design.
2. Excellent student, she receives a scholarship awarded by the school.
3. School says the scholarship was awarded on merit.
4. …………… No, there's no other facts. The rest of the drama is opinion and innuendo and smear all the way from those who want to make this into something it isn't. And you want Wikipedia to participate in this confection.

We are an encyclopaedia, not some gossip column. Criticise Tony Abbott's actions on social and economic policies, that's fine, but using this article about a minor school to attack innocent student Frances Abbott with gossip and innuendo, making her a political football, that's not what we are about. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh come now Pete. There were many-a political stunt from 2007-2013 that you thought worthy of inclusion. Now the shoe's on the other foot... Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, Kevin Rudd eating his own earwax. But we had actual video footage from Parliament House. It doesn't get much better than that. No opinion, no third hand reports, no media releases. Just raw footage, confronting and disturbing. Make up your own minds, viewers. Did he swallow? --Pete (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we want to know? AlanS (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How do we go about making this a full blown RfC? Like I get invites to comment on, on my user page every now and then?AlanS (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Go for it--all you have to do is change the heading. I have no problem with that. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since the main notability of the school is its connection to the Australian PM, one would expect that to be the main emphasis of the article. However, the school appears to fail "Notability (organizations and companies)" or comes under "People notable for only one event". So my reaction would be to delete the article and put the information about the scholarship in the PM's article, provided it met weight, or create an article about the event, provided it was notable. But if the article remains, then the story should too. TFD (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a mistake to assume that this is what they are best known for - we're focused on recent events, because we know them, but this is an institution that has been around for almost 30 years and has had a lot of press coverage in the past. If we dig, we'll probably find that they this is a temporary blip in their coverage, but isn't reflective of the institution's history. Especially given that it seems to have turned out to be such a minor issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you have your conclusion drawn already, but that "the main notability is its connection to the Australian PM" is, ahem, bollocks. WP:NSCHOOL doesn't require much in the way of coverage, and of course is not a person, so 1E can't be invoked. Looking at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is instructive as well. The long and short of it is that this article will stand, scandal or not, so all this talk of "having no notability outside of the scandal" is silly: per Wikipedia's conventions, it does, since it's a college and it exists. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has already survived AfD for the exact reasons you bring up. AlanS (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course it has notability in terms of the existence of an article. But the fact that there are very limited reliable sources about the institution outside of this affair necessarily play into how we determine issues of weighting; we cannot invent reliable sources for the purpose of adding more positive material, nor can we justifiably (effectively) totally eliminate impeccably-sourced material about a heavily-reported affair. We have this case with a whole bunch of articles (usually of much worse character than this organisation, however) - what do you do when you have to encyclopedically cover something with bugger all positive coverage and a lot of negative coverage? This is why I'm of the opinion that about the current mix is about the best treatment of this we're going to get; the affair can't be summarised much more without losing important material, but neither can it grow or it would get unjustifiably disproportionate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree. Also the coverage of the affair is not something that really belongs anywhere else. Francis certainly doesn't justify a page to herself. The event doesn't justify a page to itself. The only other place where it might belong is Tony Abbott and there's no way Pete would ever agree to that (I can see him claiming WP:BRD now after reverting and then refusing to discuss the material with comments like "until you address my points I'm not going to discuss this further", when you've already addressed his points). AlanS (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS, your ideas about me have scant relation to the reality. May I suggest that you focus on content, not other editors? On that note, the story doesn't belong here. The school awarded a scholarship to a student. Not at all notable. The school isn't saying that there was anything untoward, and all we have to the contrary is someone waving their hands about without providing any facts. Even then, his comments are aimed at Tony Abbott, not the school. --Pete (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The story is as much about the school as it is about Tony Abbott. Have you actually read any of the source material? AlanS (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

What AlanS said. None of the press coverage is about the teacher's comments, at least until very recently; it's significant mainstream media coverage about the issues brought up. Out of many articles on this affair, the teacher was named as the source in one article and his remarks featured in another; to suggest that the coverage was about him is to suggest that either a) you haven't read the sources, or b) you're deliberately misrepresenting them. It is notable because Wikipedia has notability standards beyond "Skyring disagrees with abundant mainstream media coverage". The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not about the school. I've read the sources, the school gets barely a mention - you go and find me an article about this thing that talks about the school, its history, its curriculum. I haven't seen one that has more than a sentence or two, most likely cribbed from us. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Bilby says they have received a lot of press coverage in the past. However the only sources used for this article, except the school itself, are about the PM/s daughter. My advice to anyone who thinks that the school has notability beyond that story is to add that information. TFD (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add what I can, although I'm pressed for time. The main issue, though, is we need to move away from thinking that this is what they are best known for, as it is clear that the Institute has had extensive press coverage over many years. If we removed all mention of Abbott, there would still be (literally) hundreds of potential sources to draw on. We just haven't used them yet. - Bilby (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scandal?

Googling "Whitehouse Institute" and "scandal", I find the grand total of zero mainstream references. The only websites saying this is a scandal are those well to the left.

Oh yeah, sorry. I did find the Sydney Morning Herald using the word. They described the part-time teacher who is at the centre of the story as "caught in a leaking scandal".[2].

If only a fringe are saying it's a scandal, then it's a fringe view.

A leaking scandal, maybe. Some are calling the teacher a whistleblower. Again, I see no mainstream mention of the term, unless we count Crikey.com and the Guardian, both quite left-leaning. Thing is, whistleblowers expose wrongdoing and zero wrongdoing has been exposed. The only information exposed has been that a student was awarded a scholarship. Big deal.

Why is this fringe story even mentioned here? No scandal, no wrongdoing, no encyclopaedic notablility. --Pete (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, "Skyring doesn't think this should be an issue" does not feature in Wikipedia's notability criteria when an issue is swimming in reliable, mainstream sources. They awarded a scholarship in controversial circumstances; it was very widely discussed and reported in impeccable sources; we report what the sources had to say about it. I'm not saying it was a "scandal", either, but it doesn't make it any less notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. This isn't about me. My opinion isn't important, and I'm sorry you think I need reminding of it. I'm just pointing out the facts and applying them to Wikipedia. Accept or ignore my opinion as you please, but if you ignore facts, you will fall into error. For example, you say above that the scholarship was awarded in controversial circumstances. No it wasn't. There was no controversy, no outcry. The award was quite unremarkable and attracted no comment. It wasn't until three years later that MK thought he'd make some political capital out of it. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not necessary to mention here as @Skyring: suggested above. And I don't think that it hold any importance. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)