Talk:Campaign for Real Education

Neutrality, lack thereof

This article in its current state, basically looking like this, is woefully non-neutral.

The sources used are indeed mostly non-partisan. "Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies", on the other hand, sounds extremely unlikely to be non-partisan on this topic!

It's more a question of how the sources are used. The Nick Seaton obituary from the Times is absolutely glowing about him, "tireless crusader", "battling for the rights and beliefs of parents", "forthright views", "testament to his indefatigable nature", and, (quoting his colleagues), 'a "self-effacing man" who had an innate mistrust of all politicians, whatever their allegiances' and "he viewed himself as a "liberal" who was only interested in restoring rigour to the education system".

And this is the Times' conclusion: 'It was this approach that Mr Seaton will be remembered for: unafraid and unashamed to take on those he saw as getting in the way of his crusade for a "real education".'

But he, or at least the organisation he founded, are not remembered thus by Wikipedia.

Instead, the current article cherry-picks those items most suited to denigrate the organisation. For example, its once having been run from a bedroom of the founder's house. (The Times lauds this as an indication of the impact that one dedicated man can make, while Wikipedia uses it as an excuse to implicitly question the legitimacy of the organisation.)

Another example is the mention of the Lewes Priory School issue as being (implicitly) the only reason that the organisation ever gained significant recognition. By contrast, the Times gives an impression of an organisation covering many issues, and repeatedly recognised for it or cited regarding it - even if only by "the right wing press".

It may be that the Dictionary of British Education describes the organisation as "right-wing", but such a publication is surely the mouthpiece of exactly those conventional views that CRE sought to attack. So we need broader sources to paint the CRE with such a political slant so emphatically, especially when the Times emphasises the organisation's supposed non-political focus, and only mentions the right-wing press as using the group, not the group itself being right-wing.

The group's current head has had problems "correcting" the current article. I don't know if his concerns are similar or different to mine, but I hope he will offer an opinion here on this talk page rather than continuing to edit war on the article.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not connected in any way with the CRE and have never had any correspondence with any of their members (apart from my offering a few warnings/words of advice on the talkpage of the current head as mentioned above). I actually basically assume they are rather oddball, and I would be unlikely to share any political views they may have. But I do like to see a fair hearing given to any group, regardless of how oddball they may be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would the source you mention at the start (Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies) be non-neutral? I think the reason given for doubting the neutrality of the Dictionary of British Education is rather spurious - the logical conclusion to that argument is that no-one involved in education can be a reliable source about the CRE.

I'm also not sure why the comments about him running it from his bedroom is questioning the legitimacy of the organisation, it was simply describing how the organisation began life. And the piece about Lewes is mentioned in the context of it first gaining national attention – it says nothing about this being the only reason the organisation gained attention.

But back to what appears to be the main issue, the organisation has been described as right-wing throughout its existence; in a Herald article in 1991, an Independent piece in 1994, and another in 2002. Of course, someone could argue that these are centre-left newspapers, but the Daily Mail's Education correspondent also referred to them as such. It's unsurprising that people representing the organisation will deny any political leanings, but we go on what reliable sources use, not self-descriptions. Number 57 23:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The Independent is 'reliable'? ROFL.

"the organisation has been described as right-wing throughout its existence" - yes, because that's proof of anything ... oh, dear.

Discussion at WP:NPOV

• A discussion regarding this page has been added to the WP:NPOV noticeboard [[1]] Tonyinman (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)