Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22f747da83dcf46

Jump to content

Talk:Cheney School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jonathan A Jones in topic National Education Union

National Education Union

[edit]

@Jonathan A Jones This article should include a section on the National Education Union GeorgeBuchanan (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why? This article is about the school, not about a union, or any other organisation which some staff happen to be a member of. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the same token should we also take out the Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) that Cheney school is part of? Union membership of workers is part of what the school is, as much as the MAT to which it belongs. The article legitimately has a history section, union members in the school organised to create noteworthy events. GeorgeBuchanan (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's no comparison. This is an article about the school, and the school is part of a trust, so of course that gets mentioned. No doubt members of staf belong to all sorts of organsations, but so what? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are the events organised by the workplace NEU group not noteworthy? To have conducted a vote of no confidence in the trust's CEO, to have gone on strike and picketed the workplace? These are relevent and noteworthy, and have a place in the encyclopedia entry GeorgeBuchanan (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
You might find it useful to review WP:NOT after you have read WP:COI. Then take a look at WP:RS. The only source you provided of any value was which is already used in the History section, where the coverage of this topic is already adequate, although it probably needs slight rewording to avoid putting "mismanagement" in Wikipedia's own voice. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply