Talk:Samuel Whitbread Academy

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort 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.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bedfordshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire 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.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	The infobox box status of this article has been marked as: Complete

Education in the United Kingdom (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Education in the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Education in the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Education in the United KingdomEducation in the United Kingdom articles

Good Neighbour Policy[edit]

86.14.216.207, I reverted the edit about the policy not working because it was not verified. Content you add should really be referenced in an outside source - what you see is not sufficient for adding the edit to Wikipedia. If you can find a source which claims the policy is not working then, by all means, add that to the page. Until then, I suggest we leave it out. ItsZippy (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that there appears to be no bias in the content describing the "Good Neighbour Policy". Any claims for "balance" in the content would appear moot. Tiderolls 06:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias in the "Good neighbour policy", it is just not true. No such policy has ever been in place at the school. There are apparently health, safety and insurance issues which prevent the school from implementing any such policy. Check with them. (The best and most verifiable source of all).86.14.216.207 (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks ago the policy was a failure, today the policy doesn't exist. We probably could develop some consensus regarding the deletion of the content. I'll search for sources that comment either way. Regards to all Tiderolls 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After factual (but unfavourable to the College) matter was deleted from the entry, by someone from the College, a few weeks before, a friend of mine decided to place a favourable, but totally untrue, item into the article to see how long it would last - 2 years later it is still there, unchallenged until now. This paragraph is a total invention. If I can still contact him (he's now living in India), I will ask for him to delete his own, erroneous entry. (Unless someone else wants to do it in the meantime).Plingsby (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Twickenham statement[edit]

I've added the for citation on the Twickenham statement in the opening section. It lacks a date so it's difficult to know relevance. The Academy website mentions it upcoming in early 2019, but will need cross referencing with a proper source. 46.244.103.108 Spijker546 (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]