Talk:New English School (Jordan)

Vandalism

user please refrain from vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auawise (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi. I'm removing a great amount of material from the prospectus section, as it's entirely unsourced, in violation of WP:SOAP, and pretty un-encyclopedic. I'm going to reorganize the remaining material into the body of the article.--Bfigura ^(talk) 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some improvements

One of the first good articles I created on my user:Auaaua1 account... But, it still needs a lot of work starting with an image, I will see if I can find one.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pics added

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 10:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reset

The article is mostly sourced, there is no room on Wikipedia for people trying to advertise their schools here. Until we prove the claims are notable and true, I am removing them.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting page

I did a bit of reading into this article, going through the history from the beginning, reading the discussion page, reading the deletion nomination discussion, and I believe that the user Aua, though obviously experienced, unilaterally and without discussion did what is tantamount to a page blanking / article deletion. The only extensive discussion with respect to this page took place on the AFD talk page in 2007, with 7 out of 7 editors coming to the unanimous consensus of Keep for an article that is for the most part the exact same as the one which was just wholly and unilaterally removed; see the diffs [[1]], read the AfD linked at top of this page. User also uses unacceptable justifications in edit summaries, such as "As the author of those images, I am having them removed from this article." This is not justification based on any Wikipedia standard (plus, they are now public domain). Furthermore, many things are removed as being unsourced, for example some Cambridge Awards. In 2 seconds I found a source for those awards on a University of Cambridge site, see (for 2008) [[2]], (for 2007) [[3]] et cetera. Not sure why this user started the page a few years ago, has edited it with what appear to be three accounts, and now annihilates it. I am reverting it, and suggesting it be AfD'd if the user Aua would like it to be, for the most part, non-existent. The article doesn't read like that much of an advertisement, however, some of it does have an unencyclopedic tone, and should perhaps be referenced better, but it can be referenced, and no statements are controversial enough to have the article "deleted" because the citations are not yet in the article. The old AfD discussion discusses this, and experienced editors seemed to be of the opinion that the article had potential, and did a fair amount of work on it themselves. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policies on sources before you ever revert me or any other user for that matter. Here is the first paragraph:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

And I intend to challenge many parts of the article, and why not? I wrote it and I know very well what I wrote.

Here is another thing to ponder, we operate by the principal of onus probandi; I will NOT look for the sources, prove they don't exist then delete the related material. If I find no sources, I'm in my full right to delete the un-sourced material.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources need not be internet-based. When you first created the article you now want to delete, did you get the facts from a verifiable source, or just make them up?

66.183.69.201 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the point here, but I ain't biting new users, so let me repeat what I said in another way: it doesn't matter if it was the truth or completely made-up- in either case we need sources. So I will start removing chunks of the article, and don't bring those back unless you have some sources to back you up.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not incompetent, I got the point and have previously familiarized myself with Wikipedia policies. You're biting by noting that you "ain't biting"--you're implying I don't know what I'm talking about. I have, historically, cut enormous parts of articles which go against Wiki policies in a flagrant manner--see: ([4]), ([5]), amongst others on different IPs. However, I believe this article has potential, and is not notably controversial (sections with awards, which are more-so, have now been referenced). My points on this page and on Peripitus:Talk seem to be being ignored--they've received no adequate reply, and you're perseverating on a single point.

(1) In one day, you removed 94.9 % of this page's content; tantamount to a page deletion ([6]).

(2) The article had an AfD discussion for a very similar version of the page, with 7/7 (read: unanimous) editors agreeing "keep" ([7]). Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that this page doesn't have a larger readership/editorship to work on it.

(3) You removed the Cambridge awards with the edit summary "someone wanted to promote the school with false ad". You added those awards a year earlier ([8]). What? You obviously had a source when adding those awards--I doubt you just guessed three years worth of awards correctly, and the sources I dug up just coincidentally/mysteriously agreed. It appears as if you're removing the information for an ulterior reason. Various other things you've added which you logically must have also gotten from a source, such as numerical values, you've also reverted, so either (A) you made them up, (B) you got them from a source, or (C) they're written, by someone, to "promote the school with a false ad". (A), (B), or (C)?

(4) See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. While I'll admit this article needs work and a lot of other schools are cited better, there are enormous chunks you could cut out of almost every article being worked on by WikiProject Schools, based on your heavy-handed deletions for poor citing. I have applied to WikiProject Schools to have this article perhaps improved by people who are members of that project.

(5) Please answer the question: what sources did you use? as we may be able to use them to improve the article. I assume you were a student there--do you have copies of any of the school's documentation? If you do, we can use it to reference some of the less controversial claims (those which don't reasonably need third-party sources), such as divisions, classes, etc.

(6) Let's work on improving the article, not deleting it. I've added 12 references, fixed some of the numerical values, added sources, etc. There is potential here.

Your only point so far is that the information was not referenced - I believe I have adequately replied to that, including admitting that there is much that is in need of reference and clarification. Furthermore, I have worked on referencing it. Now I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of replying to my points, rather than telling me I don't get your point.

P.S. Just curious, was the edit that User:N1081992A added to the article referring to you?

66.183.69.201 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, let me answer point by point:
1. Ever noticed the {{Reset}} template I put there when I removed 95% of the article? First step is to remove a large chunk of the "crap" I produced 2-3 years ago and have the whole thing written from the ground up. I come the next day and find you restoring everything. (Yes, it's true I used it in a VERY wrong way without asking for semi-protection or anything but still my intentions should have been clear)
2. Yes, I know. Here is the the kicker: the fifth !vote is mine! GermanCorrector who is User:Auawise who is User:Aua who is in turn moi! I've written and defended the article.
3. Doesn't matter- true or not; they are not to be included "sourceless".
4. Are you serious with that argument?
5. I was a N00b, what I used doesn't count.
6. Why so interested? In fact, how can someone from BC, Canada just "stumble" on a article about s small school in the middle east? I'm extremely curious.

Yeah, I believe it is. User:N1081992A is a real life friend of mine, she thought including me in the article counts as notable.

Satisfied with my answers?

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(1 & 6) To answer points 1 & 6 at the same time, the history: your "reset" tag added this page to Category:Wikipedia Office-protected pages ([9] - refuses to wikilink correctly), which I had linked to from Wikipedia's Office Actions policies, which I was at because I was investigating all of the different levels of protection involved with the Wikipedia project and how they are implemented and managed, especially the rarer types of protection. Did you know the "reset" template is supposed to be used "under the authority of WP:OFFICE?" This is an office tool, not even an regular administration tool. I have no vested interest in the article whatsoever, nor had I ever heard of it (or any other school in Jordan, for that matter). Still curious?

(2) I guess we've reached an impasse with this point. 7/7 people supported the article; you were one of them; you have now changed your mind; therefore, the article will be deleted.

(3 & 5) You are totally skirting this issue - I asked a simple question in order to improve this article. I do not see this as a fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses: you either made the information up when you added it, or you got it from a source (or someone else added it as a "false ad," but then you claim to have added all the information to the article). If you're worried because you used the Prospectus and think that's unacceptable, note that "a primary source may be used [...] to make descriptive claims." I find logically, as I have shown before, that you must have had at least some sources--especially for things such as the Cambridge awards (I doubt you had those memorized or just made them up). But you seem to be adamantly against admitting you had any, and you keep using the argument that the article is to be removed because it is sourceless! The veracity of the statements is not the key issue here, but more how you wrote the article you now want to remove... and why you used suspect edit summaries, such as "someone wanted to promote the school with a false ad," when removing information you added a year before. Please explain this conundrum?!

(4) Damn, I knew you were experienced enough to bring this one up, however I thought you were going to link to the other page - Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I was actually considering rebutting this in the last post before you even brought it up, but I thought you might understand my meta-argument (but I now realize, along with your "biting" comment, you think I'm a noob who has no clue what I'm doing an I can't appropriately apply concepts). What I was trying to imply has nothing to do with "There's an article on x, and that's just as famous as this." The simplest part of what I was trying to imply is that there is a project with a group of experienced editors who have worked on a whole category of articles on schools similar to this one, and a lot could be learned from the consensuses they have historically come to. To summarize an aspect of what I was trying to imply, perhaps I would say, "A whole category of other crap very similar to this exists that experienced editors have deliberated about and worked long and hard on--observe what their 'community' has come to consensuses on, and they will probably have come to better conclusions than you and I arguing independently on this page could ever come up with." If Other Stuff Exists and the related policies are completely read through, they do hint, further on in the articles, that this concept can be used in a fruitful way. Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines is an excellent paradigm to start with.

66.183.69.201 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. After this brutal exchange we've had, I have a strange desire to become your friend, because we both obviously consider topics such as this quite deeply, and are probably similar. You should come visit BC sometime :) . . . I'm actually on Vancouver Island. Far away from Harvard, but closer than Jordan.

Hey mate!

Just wanted to let you know I read your reply, and I'll respond once I come back in about 10 hours from now. However, I'm just inclined to give up on this one.

Actually my family is moving to Comox on the eastern coast next year, so I'll be spending a lot of time on Vancouver Island... :D

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know of Prospectus?

Reviewing this article's history, at one point it was comprised of what appeared, for the most part, a cut and paste of the Prospectus (unsourced and inappropriately used, however). Most of this information is unencyclopedic and unusable; however, I am wondering if anyone knows how to go about obtaining some of the school's own (preferably English-language) documentation, as some of the less controversial claims of the school on this page could be appropriately referenced using it (such as the schools divisions and subjects, which reasonably do not require a third-party publication).

66.183.69.201 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I found an old copy of the Prospectus -- but if anyone knows of any other documentation, I'd still be keen to use it!

66.183.69.201 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why bother? Delete article like Aua said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.91.1 (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You a friend of Aua? Or a student of the school? After looking at your User talk:62.84.91.1, it becomes pretty apparent that you don't really care (or even know about) Wikipolicies regarding deletion, etc. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I am assessing this article following an assessment request as C/Low. A long article with a good mix of pictures, the school logo in the infobox would be good also. Some references but these should probably be cleaned up by fully using {{cite web}} and other such templates. Many areas of the article clearly need more references and this is the main improvement which is needed for the article to reach B-class. Some further content, such as notable alumni would also be good, see WP:WPSCH/AG for help. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As School Project assessor says, "the school logo in the infobox would be good also." For some reason, User Aua got it deleted. Too bad. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note that the "Project Schools" assessor didn't say that the article appeared as promotion. Aua consistently ignores objective opinions? As before, in the section "Revert," above, I say maybe we should defer to someone in Wikiproject Schools, but he rebuts this with WP:OTHERCRAP. How does this reasonably apply? I was saying we should allow someone objective to the situation and experienced with consensus related to such topics the final word. But he pulls WP:OTHERCRAP. It would help if he actually justified his positions with reasonable arguments (for eg, his Sex Ed edits, and his low-standards edits) rather than vague (and meaningless references to various policies). 66.183.69.201 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User Aua

User Aua really wanted this article deleted before (blanking the page and WP:OFFICE tagging it—obviously without the authority, among other dubious acts, like getting the school's logo deleted so that a Wikiproject Schools Assessor has to come along and say it would be appropriate to get one-see section above), and I "saved" it by providing significant referencing and cleaning it up a bit. I honestly thought that I had done it a service. So I left it alone for a while to see what would happen. Since then he seems to have started to try and make a WP:POINT by adding purposefully controversial things with bogus references, see the egregious [10], where he adds false information about the school's Sex Ed program with two purposefully blatantly bogus references [Ammantourism] and [Directory], which have absolutely nothing to do with the claim, and WP:BOMBARD it with other, unrelated references about Sex Education to make it appear "significant." After this, an IP tried to remove the section 3 times, and was reverted by other editors to whom it appeared a valid section because of the numerous bogus references. He also uses comical prose to try and make the article appear ridiculous "famous for its notoriously infamous"—check the user's other edits and userpage, he's normally up to a significantly higher standard than this. He then made this change [11] with the reason that it was "WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMOTION." This is its source [[12]], could you tell me how that could possibly be considered a copyvio? Or promotion for that matter? It's just descriptive claims about the school taken from a directory. User also makes this change, [[13]], using an old citation needed tag in order to make it appear as if the controversial/bogus information that was being added about the school having "moderate-to-low standards," wasn't controversial and had stood for a long time as a "known" fact (while employing such WP:WEASEL words in edits left-and-right). In this edit the user removes a notably non-controversial statement that the school has foreign teachers, and adds an extremely controversial one in its place. See other issues above. I'm reverting some of the especially questionable changes Aua has made, I thought we'd negotiated a peace on this article before.... 66.183.69.201 (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Also blanked citation-needed section "The NES is the only Jordanian school currently accredited to train teachers who wish to obtain the Cambridge International Diploma," which is not extremely dubious, considering it's affiliated with Cambridge, when there are far more dubious citation-needed sections in the article, like its "low-standards" section, which were left, for some reason. Please see the section above "Reverted page" to see this editor's previously established strange vendetta against this article. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Finished? You do bring up a lot of things on the table here. I fail to see how you have the right to introduce many sections which need citation, but when I introduced one with lots of references you'd come and consider it inappropriate and even calling it vandalism? Not only this but also accuse another editor who protected the article from vandals to be wrong? And also you come here and list things to make it look I'm trying to destroy an article I created and defended in its AfD? Seriously?

I don't like explaining, but painting yourself as the good guy is wrong. Here are the facts:

The article was created by me.

It was nominated for deletion, and I was one of the editors who voted and strongly wanted it kept.

The article was then being filled with promotions and ad-like sections lifted from the prospectus (sadly, some of those edits were mine).

I tried to correct the wrongs by resetting the article, my intention was not to destroy it but to start all over before IP came and reverted.

I admit IP did a rather good job in putting some references there, but he seems to be promoting his school.

He came today and reverted sections that are simply lifted from another source constituting serious violations. Check this out:

The section in question:

"NES, licensed by the Jordanian Ministry of Education, is a coeducational private school catering for the 4-18 age range. Founded in 1986, it is one of the first Jordanian schools to introduce International GCSE and GCE A-levels. Bilingual streams are available for the majority of students, the English-led element of which is based on the National Curriculum of England and Wales, with the intent of providing a foundation for International General Certificate of Secondary Education and A Level courses. NES graduates often continue on to universities in several locations internationally."

And where it was copied from:

"Founded in 1986 and licensed by the Jordanian Ministry of Education, the New English School (NES) is a coeducational private school catering for the 4-18 age range. From Kindergarten to KS3 students receive a largely bilingual education, the English-led element of which is based on the National Curriculum of England and Wales, which provides the foundation for IGCSE and A Level courses. NES graduates pursue a variety of university degree courses in several locations, including the UK, the US, Canada, Lebanon, the UAE and Jordan."

Yes, the IP copied that "verifiable" section from the prospectus! This qualifies it as WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMOTION. I mean seriously.

Not to mention inserting wrong facts such as the school having two principals! I'll deal with that later.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss the points. I listed two principals when I cleaned up the article because you were so concerned with "verifiability, not truth." See the long-winded discussion we had above, where you make this so blatantly obvious. This was your stance, so I only added "verifiable" info. All I was trying to do was help the article, so I did it your way!

Secondly, please don't template me for vandalism and revert my edits as vandalism using TW when it's blatantly obvious (not to mention AGF) that what I did doesn't qualify as vandalism, especially considering I mention it on the talk page first. You're just trying to make my talk page look disreputable.

PLEASE stop stating that IT IS MY SCHOOL. IT IS NOT! I have never been outside of North America. As I told you in the discussion above, I only discovered it because you completely inappropriately stuck the article in the category WP:OFFICE. You never responded when I brought that up though....

I did not introduce any sections which needed citation (not sure why you're saying I did). During the cleanup I added numerous citation needed tags and sourced many statements. I even removed some stuff, too!

Third, what do you have to say about that Sex Ed section with bogus references? You haven't replied to any of the serious points I've made in this discussion or the one we had before, and you seem to be adding a section wholly flying in the face of the standards you established before. This seems, to me, like WP:POINT, you're trying to prove that you can make the article look like crap. You said before your intention was to destroy it.

It's been obviously proven that I can't communicate with this editor, who does have an apparent COI with respect to this article; and, no matter how many times he asserts I do, it doesn't make it true.

Things I'd like a response on:

(~) For anyone who wants context to this issue, please see section above "Reverted"

(1) The meaning of the Sex Ed section of the article and its "sources," what is your WP:POINT? Please identify where in those sources "Sex Ed" is mentioned. For anyone who's interested, here are the refs [Ammantourism], [Directory]

(2) Why you call what I did vandalism (and even further template me at this stage of the game), that's just a bit much

(3) The blanking of the page (when you repeatedly, fervently state how you supported it in AfD, and so did 6/6 other editors, when you change your mind, the consensus changes?)

(4) The inappropriate WP:OFFICE tagging of the article

(5) Verifiability or truth? You pick.

(6) Removing additions of your own with the summary "someone wanted to promote the school with false ad" (awards which I easily sourced, and I'm assuming you must have got them from a source) — Does this prove you have some sort of (fickle) COI?

(7) The weaseling in of some horribly POV statements which need heavy citation (i.e., the school has "low standards"), without any, and using weaselly words like it's "known" to support such dubious assertions. Oh, and the fact that this was snuck in beside an old citation needed tag. All this while you righteously excise far less dubious statements from the article as needing citations.

(8) The intro: I noticed it was in the prospectus. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia source policies state that primary sources may be used to make descriptive claims (such as about the basic school info). I knew, for some reason, you would disapprove of this nonetheless, so I added other sources to the lead which corroborated these facts! (PS The "IP" [me] didn't copy and add that section as you state, that was done by you, way back).

(9) Attempting to get the article speedy deleted after a 7/7 support AfD and as I was cleaning it. Blatantly against Wikipolicies?

(9) I could keep going, there are a few other things, but do you think an RfC would be appropriate at this point?

66.183.69.201 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't tell me how those Sex-Ed (and low standard) sources have anything to do with their edits, I might just have to remove them. Any comment?

66.183.69.201 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, seriously. I have no interest in this article beyond the occasional visit, and no interest in this argument beyond the occasional comment. I am not stubborn and when I make a mistake, I'm the first one to admit and apologize. Check my talk page for lots of examples. However, I'm being extremely flexible here.

Now, let's clear something here. I don't wake up at night from frighting nightmares about this article, I don't wish to destroy it more than the next article. I'm here on WP for so long that I my record shows I'm helping the project. From the start, all I wanted was a fresh start on this one, in a sense redeeming a mistake I made way back in the day. Obviously, thanks to you I can't get that. Fine, have it your way.

Next, let's be a bit objective, no school is perfect. Nope, you want to remove that too and just have sections from the prospectus.

Honestly, I don't get it.

Let's get to the issues at hand:

• Intro: Well, you did revert back to it twice. The second time was after I clearly stated it was a copyright violation. I didn't say a thing the first time, didn't warn or anything, but you bringing it back despite the clear infringement ticked me off.
• RfC: Not helpful, time consuming and most wise editors will distance themselves from a topic they ain't familiar with. Add to that the fact you're an IP, and me an established editor who almost ran for a sysop position, and you will see how people will have a hard time being fair to you. IP editors are discriminated against around here. You, yourself, just did that to the IP who suggested we delete the article above! I play hard, but fair.
• SexED: Is that really controversial? It's just a normal course like History and Geography. The article states that the class exists (was extremely hard to find sources for that, so I relied on comments about it on some web sites. Please go back and check the sources again. Not exactly adhering to WP guidelines about reliability, but barely enough to prove its mere existence). Second, it argues parents were against it, and that ain't too hard to believe. The sources which were there were to reference general concerns about the topic and not particularly related to NES. Still valid though and verifiable. In fact, there are lots of unreferenced statements there, and you are gonna remove this one, you might as well remove 3/4 the article. Welcome to square one.

Would you mind telling me your age range or educational background: PhD, MD, etc? I know it's irrelevant, and in any case you will get the utmost respect from me. But with people much older than myself, I have to be formal and drop the "Dude! Seriously?" kinda tone. Don't worry, I won't take it easy on you if you were 110 (years old). :)

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

BA in Philosophy and BA in Phys Ed. Nonetheless, I don't appreciate being asked that in a situation like this. ad verecundiam, anyone? Strangely, you showed a disregard for actually applicable topical experience before when I said we should defer this to Wikiproject Schools standards, and try and improve it based on their standard consensual practice.

Not sure why I have to say it again, but I didn't revert it twice. That was some other IP.

I have read through both of those sources for the Sex Ed (beyond them being completely unacceptable sources even if they did mention the class), and even had to sign up for the one. Please quote the applicable passages. From all I can surmise, those two sources are absolute BS, unacceptable for multiple reasons. Your addition of the two other sources makes me even more suspect; they look just like a form of bombardment, as they don't provide logical support for the claims. When sourcing a proposition in the form Group X in situation Y believes Z you cannot support it by providing a source (or two) that explains why the belief Z is tenable! You provide a source which relates the facts in the same way that is being claimed. When pressed, you say it "ain't too hard to believe." What? No, it ain't, but when the evidence piles up, your edits become suspect.

I don't think the class is controversial. The way you are framing the section is what is controversial. And objectively it is controversial, which is what you actually assert and source in the article!

What about sourcing for the extremely POV section about the school's low standards?

I know IPs are treated like crap here. You mention my (wholly unacceptable) "loosing-my-cool" with Roux on another talk page, that was because he jumped on me as an IP and completely ignored the objective context of my argument (a few other IPs actually jumped on him at the same time, quoting the applicable policies with respect to IP editing). I got heated there.

This pretty much proves the WP:POINT you're trying to make:

"you are gonna remove this one, you might as well remove 3/4 the article. Welcome to square one."

hmmm.... your final kick-at-the-can after page-blanking, WP:OFFICE tagging, and then even attempted speedy deletion...?

What further makes me think you're trying to make a point in the article that you didn't get your way with is the rather ridiculously comical prose you used, which is incommensurate with your standard quality of edits (i.e., "particularly famous for its notoriously infamous"). If it's "particularly famous and infamous" for this, why isn't it easily sourced? Here's an actual example of a school being particularly infamous for something, Middletown High School (New York). Your wording is particularly POV, which is strange at this point..., given your earlier points.

I don't believe every school is perfect. Some parents at probably every school in the world offering Sex Ed have opinions on it. If a particular school is notoriously infamous for this, then it should be notable.

I think it's pretty self-apparent given the history of this debate that you want the article removed or cut down to nothing, didn't get your way by blanking it, didn't get your way by Speedy Deletion (something you're never supposed to try after an AfD), and now you're out to prove it or make it happen by any means necessary (WP:POINT).

66.183.69.201 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Please check this secondary 3^rd-party source (arguably 2^nd-party, but still better than the prospectus), which was the actual one I used to corroborate the majority of the lead with.

European Council of International Schools, ECIS School Search (New English School)

I will have to reply tomorrow due to time restrictions, but in general, would it be possible to stop "user aua did this" and "user aua did that". Not very civil, you know. In any case, here is what propose:

You want to reword the section about SexEd? Be my guest. You want to remove the "low standards"? Have a blast, but trying to justify why the lead is there? No, sir. It's not whether you can verify it or not, it's the fact that it's copied with minor alterations.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. This article is not even important enough to have a talkpage 4 times its own size. Seriously.

removed "reputation" section

Folks

I just removed this as, after following the citation links, They seem to support nothing in the section at all. This reads as original research written by a student. The first two references went to forum boards - which are far from being reliable sources and neither of them mentioned any of the information they were supposed to be supporting - Peripitus (Talk) 20:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

They don't support anything in the section at all, and they were tagged as such. Oddly, you were reverted as vandalism. I am re-implementing the changes. Looking over the history of this article, it appears that the section was removed numerous times. It's POV, poorly written (i.e., "particularly famous for its notoriously infamous"), and worse than having no sourcing, it actually has seemingly intentionally misleading sourcing. Go through the history of this article, and read this talk page... something weird is up.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The information was first added by User:Aua in this edit in July 2009, the same user that caused the material to be readded. Re-reading, the material is clearly not appropriate or supported - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New English School (Jordan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090417021104/http://www.blavatsky.net:80/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/ancientlandmarks/ExOrienteLux.html to http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/ancientlandmarks/ExOrienteLux.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.newenglishschool.net/prospectus.html

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New English School (Jordan). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.newenglishschool.net/prospectus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129200740/http://www.flyingcolours.org.uk/cgi-site/schools.cgi?action=detail&id=298 to http://www.flyingcolours.org.uk/cgi-site/schools.cgi?action=detail&id=298
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newenglishschool.net/news_%26_events.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214144834/http://www.flyingcolours.org.uk/item/1170/23/5/3 to http://www.flyingcolours.org.uk/item/1170/23/5/3

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) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)