Talk:Educate Together

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources and notability[edit]

I've added some third-party sources - mainly newspapers - and expanded the article, including a short piece about the significance of the organisation.Autarch (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from the term multi-demonational?[edit]

I have concerns that this redirect may be self-promotional.

From Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting:

"The redirect constitutes self-promotion..." (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.) (Speedy deletion criterion G11

Educate Together appears to be a for profit organization.


Veriss (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Ireland and Educate Together[edit]

Whatever position Atheist Ireland took in the past, it seems to have become critical of Educate Together: [1] I'm not sure if this blog entry would be unsuitable as a source, given that it's a blog or if it could be taken as the position of Atheist Ireland.Autarch (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Educate Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Educate Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary[edit]

I have added a "primary" tag to the article. Despite the excellent work by Autarch some years ago, there is still an over-reliance on primary sources. Making the article (quite unfortunately really) read a bit like a press-release. Additional secondary sources would ideally be added. Which might also encourage some of the more promotional language to be tempered a little. (It helps neither the project or the subject if the tone is overly promotional. A seasoned reader will immediately spot a "puff piece" and will dismiss it as such. Sometimes I think editors with close associations don't seem to recognise that....) Guliolopez (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - OK. I've fixed most of the reference and link issues (dead links, over-reliance on primary sources, the inappropriate LINKFARM website directory, etc), to the extent that I've removed the hatnote again. Seriously need to be careful that this article doesn't become unbalanced to the extent that an advert style tag is required. Guliolopez (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused about the removal of the very useful list of schools. Wikipedia is filled with articles that include lists - a good example are the pages on airline route networks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aer_Lingus_destinations - I do not see how that page is any different from Educate Together having a list of its schools. If the addition of the links to the schools' websites is the problem then the list could be restored without them. (Paddyirishman (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Hiya. Rather than getting into the 'other stuff/lists exist' aspect of the point raised (where we may perhaps be comparing two different things - a standalone list to an embedded list), I might focus on the specifics. Firstly, yes, the "list of websites" was one of the primary concerns that drove the removal of the list. It was however not the only concern. (There were in the region of 90 websites/emails listed in that matrix, which is inappropriate to the project on WP:WWPIN grounds. Particularly those norms covered in the fundamental project principles about not being an "an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory".) Even if that issue was addressed however (by removing the ~90 links and keeping just the three "lists of schools"), personally I feel it would be problematic relative to the core content policies, and the guidelines on whether and when to have embedded lists. To perhaps figure out how to address the concern however, can I turn it around slightly, and ask a question? You note that the reader might have found the three lists of schools to be "very useful". In what way were the lists useful? By highlighting quite how many schools there are? If so, in what way is that reader value not met by the text which (for example) highlights that there are "over 80 Educate Together primary schools in Ireland, in 18 different counties" (a few in England and a growing volume of secondary schools)? If we can pinpoint what reader value the list was perhaps offering, then maybe we can try and offer similar value in the prose. Without perhaps turning the article into a mirror of the organisation's own directory. Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Educate_Together&oldid=1196446753"