Talk:IES San Isidro

Notice about verification of sources and references

We must be aware that the most dangerous of the errors in Wikipedia is that more and more people are taking it as a reliable source, and lately I see with surprise how even journalists do short-stick with what they read here. Tremendous. And even more tremendous when they reinterpret what WP or a blog say and perpetrate nonsense like this article of a Brazilian (!?) journalist, or this other from an institutional page. Conclusion, Wikipedia is highly dangerous as an alibi for ideologies, spam, bias, various personal interests, etc., as well as a harmful showcase of pumas, trolls, unclassifiable melopeas and other inventions between infantilism and endemic foolishness ... In short: ignorance.

All this came a bit as an introduction to the convenience of including as a reference that of the page of the institute, moderately well titled "Celebrities who have passed through our Institute". Such ambiguity allows to include those who only went to the center to examine themselves (but who were never students of the institute), like all the students of the Free Institution, or of the Lyceums (French, German, etc.) for children of aristocratic families or powerful, or, at the height of proselytizing, a María Zambrano who once published an article in the school magazine. I can understand and accept the illusion that a schoolboy can make him say that King Juan Carlos or Queen Fabiola studied in his school, but the truth is that they only entered the school building to be examined (like many of those listed ). Here we had to mention another detail that has led to confusion to journalists and various municipal pages, blogs, etc ...: the building . The huge house, since the 16th century, housed all types of students, but can not be considered students of the institute (because it did not exist). Neither were students 'of the institute' , those who attended the very diverse institutions that had classrooms in the building of Jesuit origin (of which today only the cloister, the stairway and the façade remain, to result in confusionism of many, pity). They have nothing to do with the San Isidro Institute and its students, characters cited in the school blog, such as Victor Hugo (who apparently "visited" in 1843 the Seminar of Nobles ]), or Luis Candelas (executed in 1837), etc., because as it has been corrected now in the article and in Wikidata, the San Isidro Institute was created by the Pidal plan in 1845. [https: // personal.us.es/alporu/historia/plan_pidal.htm The Pidal plan] --Latemplanza (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing 1st paragraph of History section and...

Further to some of the points raised above, I have just removed the first paragraph of the History section, as the only reference —González de Lastra and Fernández Bargueño (reliable sources)— given for the whole paragraph makes no mention whatsoever of any of the things mentioned therein. I hope to be able to make more sense of that section and, more importantly, provide reliable references and/or remove unsourced material, of which there is much... --Technopat (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Have finally had to remove the entire section as unsourced, while maintaining and incorporating any referenced item elsewhere in the article. That said, some of the existing references are pretty iffy, especially the blogs and, I'm afraid, the stuff from the school's website (students' online magazine?). However, as my editing here has been pretty aggressive to date, it might be better if other users decide whether those sources are reliable.

I propose bringing over some of the more credible content from Wikipedia in Spanish but need assurance that that version also meets generally accepted standards. --Technopat (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)