Talk:William Hulme's Grammar School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject. | |
 |
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article. | |
'" Controversy' Section removed due to it being out-dated and irrelevent "
Contents |
[edit] tidy
I am currently removing alot of unsuitable information. The school, in an encyclopaedic sense does not have a "state of the art" language lab, technicians "who are extremely valued" or a "well equiped" science block. Sentences such as: "The school music department organises a myriad of activities for students" are, i'm sure you'll agree wholly redundant.
This is wikipedia, not the school's prospectus. Many of the headings contain absolutely no information of any substance whatsoever and have been removed. petepetepetepete
In YOUR opinion, anonymous censor.
If we are removing out-dated things how about you go and edit other historical items that you don't like? Shall we just get rid of all pages that are pre-2007? Oh well, the Wright Brother's plane is no match for a F14 Tomcat fighter jet, so lets get rid of all those pages. No one uses sinclair Spectrum computers anymore so we can lose those pages. Oh and JFK was shot years ago - so lets get rid of this outdated information.
How can a FACTUAL ACCOUNT OF SOMETHING be outdated?
'Controversy' Section re-added due to it being extremely relevant as it happened at the school and was featured in several national newspapers.
I am afraid I see a fundamental flaw in your argument. You are arguing that the controversy section needs to be there, presumably because you think that the article should provide important information regarding how events have affected the school's current existence. If the said controversy had an effect (which in my view and in the view of many many others), why is there nothing in the article about events which had a huge effect, such as the admittance of girls, or lacrosse stopping being played? If, on the other hand, you want an article giving an in-depth history of the school, then the controversy should be there, as well as lists of ex-cricket captains or old teachers. Or perhaps in-depth accounts of how Andy Hinchcliffe was bullied? It's entirely your choice, as you seem utterly determined that the article should mention the controversy. I suspect that a large part of your insistence can be attributed to your being biased against public schools, and therefore feel a need to degrade them and suggest that they are packed with pervy teachers.
Additionally, I would like to point out that your reasoning that it is relevant as it "happened at the school" is lousy. There was a new work-display put up last month. Shall we put that into the article? Many hundreds of other events have been in newspapers. Going co-educational? Effect of losing government grants? Selling land? Going private? Becoming an academy? When you have written about all of them in sufficient detail I will accept that an event far less important than them can also go in the article.
As I said, the purpose of the article is to provide a description of what the school is like, NOW, and how important facts such as low student numbers led to changes. The controversy caused no long-term effects whatsoever other than to give anti-public school hippies slating material as well as indulging their sarcastic tongues. The Wright Brothers had a profound effect on modern life. Kennedy's death had a huge effect on America.
Controversy section removed due to it being misleading, misplaced and massively over-emphasised. PP.
[edit] Motto
I changed the translation of the motto slightly. As it was told to me on my first day at WHGS, the motto is, inter alia, a pun on "whom/Hulme".--ukexpat 02:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I object to inclusion of Controversy
I am afraid I see a fundamental flaw in your argument. You are arguing that the controversy section needs to be there, presumably because you think that the article should provide important information regarding how events have affected the school's current existence. If the said controversy had an effect (which in my view and in the view of many many others), why is there nothing in the article about events which had a huge effect, such as the admittance of girls, or lacrosse stopping being played? If, on the other hand, you want an article giving an in-depth history of the school, then the controversy should be there, as well as lists of ex-cricket captains or old teachers. Or perhaps in-depth accounts of how Andy Hinchcliffe was bullied? It's entirely your choice, as you seem utterly determined that the article should mention the controversy. I suspect that a large part of your insistence can be attributed to your being biased against public schools, and therefore feel a need to degrade them and suggest that they are packed with pervy teachers.
Additionally, I would like to point out that your reasoning that it is relevant as it "happened at the school" is lousy. There was a new work-display put up last month. Shall we put that into the article? Many hundreds of other events have been in newspapers. Going co-educational? Effect of losing government grants? Selling land? Going private? Becoming an academy? When you have written about all of them in sufficient detail I will accept that an event far less important than them can also go in the article.
As I said, the purpose of the article is to provide a description of what the school is like, NOW, and how important facts such as low student numbers led to changes. The controversy caused no long-term effects whatsoever other than to give anti-public school hippies slating material as well as indulging their sarcastic tongues. The Wright Brothers had a profound effect on modern life. Kennedy's death had a huge effect on America.
Controversy section removed due to it being misleading, misplaced and massively over-emphasised. PP.
[edit] I support the inclusion of Controversy
-- Are you sure the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to describe it's CURRENT state? So should we just set up webcams showing what is happening at this very second as opposed to listing notable and interesting facts about the subject. Yes selling land, going private, losing governement grants, adding girls, all should be in the article if they can be presented as a factual account. There is nothing misleading about the article and it does not have to affect the schools current status. If the school is fit for a Wikipedia entry it should be prepared to include facts both positive and negative. The section does not imply that the school was somehow responsible for Mr Purvis's actions.
You also state 'When you have written about all of them in sufficient detail I will accept that an event far less important than them can also go in the article.'. Sorry I didn't realise you are self appointed content approver with full creative control over the article. The idea of a wiki is that it can be added to. I do not see anywhere a requirement that there is some sort of hierarchy as to what may be added at any given time. You may consider this article to be extremely irrelevent and unimportant but I will bet that many readers found it an interesting fact.
I think you should apply for a job at the Ministry of Truth, they could use a censor like you.
[edit] Disagree
Firstly, I object to your sarcasm. This is an encyclopaedia entry discussion, not a verbal jousting session. You are also being rather hypocritical- you are censoring as much as I am. I am not censoring information in any way whatsoever. I am not altering facts. I am not a self-appointed controller. I am, though, concerned that this article is extremely unbalanced. As you so wisely stated, anyone can alter the article. You presumably want a mixture of history and current fact in the article, in which case, yes, controversy could be included. However, an article that comprihensive must surely contain details of things that as great an effect as the controversy. Long term changes to timetable structure 10 years ago affect today's students. A controversial headmaster has not affected the students. If we want to talk history, fine, but do it properly. You are correct in saying that the school is not implied as being responsible. The inclusion of the controversy is only as damaging to this school as it is to another similar school- it implies that these schools are full of this sort of person, which is untrue. Your insistence in this matter suggests to me that you are a person with such views.
This has nothing to do with 1984. You are stereotyping in a somewhat comical manner. If I wanted to paint a rosy picture of the school, then I could easily do so- why mention that they are having to leave the private sector? Surely that is bad for the school's image, that they can't find enough students?
[edit] Info on houses and headmasters
I think that this information is both important and interesting, and have therefore filled in details.
[edit] The School's massive organ
I love the table on the organ. Has anyone got any more detailed information? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
