Talk:West Cheshire College

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Cheshire Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On disability discrimination[edit]

That last edit was a lot closer. I don't have the sources to rewrite it myself, but here's what I suggest:

Make sure that the paragraph is entirely factual, with none of your own opinion inserted.
Don't put it at the beginning of the article- place it nearer to the end, since it's information about the school but not the most important, defining information.
Include a link to a newspaper story or other source about the discrimination case and its resolution.

I have this page on my watchlist, and I'd be glad to help you tweak it so it includes the relevant information while staying neutral and citing sources. -FisherQueen 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it twice more today. One case does not make for "a history of disability discrimination." In addition, the statement on that single case requires a citation to stay in the article. If the editor behind this provides a citation, I'll have no objection to leaving it in the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And... we have a winner! I have no problem with the paragraph as recently revised- it is specific to the incident it describes, and it includes a source. -FisherQueen 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a specific citation for this - the title of the article, the name of the article's author, etc. The name of the plaintiff and the nature of his disability would also be useful. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's community working as it's supposed to - taking the article from ridiculously biased to ridiculously benign to factua. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the previous editor, I believe that people need to know when Public Authorities like WCC discriminate - it is a useful fact for anyone who, for example, is disabled and wishes to apply for employment in such an organisation. The source I supplied was verifiable, the Association for College Management is a Trade Union for College Managers in the UK. I can, however, provide the specific employment tribunal case reference if that would verify the information. I would also argue that the tone is not negative , it is simply stating a fact. This College does discriminate.

If you have an agenda to publicise your negative opinion of this collage, then you should not edit this article. Start a blog. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Doc^g 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the world is a clean and sanitised place where nothing untoward should ever be reported. As I stated before, my edit was fact and you are assuming that I have a negative agenda. How dare you - who decided that you would be the one to decide what is right or wrong, negative or positive? Who decided the factual accuracy of the information that is currently published - there are no sources or citations published. People like you make me sick - you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Assessment[edit]

This article remains a stub as there are no independent references. Work should be done to sort out the references- then convert all the lists to prose.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]