Talk:Newington College/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV?

This article certainly has a POV issue in place, is anyone prepared to clean it up? I mean, really, it sounds more like an advertisement for the school than a neutral collection of factual information.. Nice of someone to mention Wade Frankum in the article though. Mwhale 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does, after reading through the wikipedia NPOV section, I'm tagging this as a neutrality disputed article. I'll list several examples later.Nebuchanezzar 11:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think you are likely to find this sort of perspective on the pages of many other educational institutions, particularly Australian independent schools (eg. Sydney Grammar, The King's School etc.). I think you'll find that people have simply copied and pasted huge bodies of text from these schools websites and pasted them into wikipedia articles, the school's websites are not likely to have a NPOV so if you want NPOV information then I suggest looking to sources other than the school's websites. The fault is with whoever copied the information from the schools websites onto wikipedia.58.164.46.131 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
yes...i completely agree. the neutrality of this article is clearly not in existance at all. i move for the content of the article which has been copied from the school website and is clearly biassed to be removed permanantly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.191.181.45 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 March 2006.

The article has been cleared up to adhere to POV standards, and there are now fair points on what Newington offers exclusively, and what other schools offer. I believe POV has been cleared up.Nebuchanezzar 13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

POV was cleared up a bit, but reintroduced. I pruned the most obvious silly commentery, but I don't know much about the validity of the comments; I may be wrong, so somebody with more knowledge about the subject should probably proofread it. _-M o P-_ 08:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, most of it has been cleared up by me again. Most could be found in that stupid arts section at Newington, and also in the HSC articles. I've braned it with a bunch of "[citation needed]" marks, as there's simply no evidence to back up a lot of the things in the article. It read like an advertisement, and it still does. None the less, it will have to do for now. Nebuchanezzar 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think POV is back. The section titled "The Arts at Newington", for example, contains lines like "very proud tradition" (without citing any results or evidence for this) and even says "we ... deploy teams", ie. it's written from the perspective of someone at the school. 220.239.26.129 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IR Controversy

Any developments should be added. Jpeob 05:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a current debate that shouldn't be covered by Wikipedia until it can be reported in a neutral and inclusive fashion. The current article should be removed as it fails to be neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.132.241 (talk • contribs) .

This article is as much a dispute as the dispute it purports to represent. It should be removed until it can be presented with a NPOV. The press reports that are used as references are opinion pieces and are not neutral.Silveriver 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is comming along very well. My only complaint is the number of new users who this section are there only edits and that they want it removed. Is the school trying to have it removed becouse it shows them in a bad light? Is there a way to find out if they are coming from the same IP? DXRAW 03:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The SMH has a code of ethics [1] They were presented in the newspaper as news not opinion. DXRAW 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Current debates should be covered by wikipedia - they just have to describe the debate, not argue for one side. If wikipedia was not allowed to cover current debates then someone needs to quickly clean up any articles pertaining to the Middle-East, United States, Germaine Greer, Creationism, etc, etc...

The latest additions to this entry and the removal by DXRAW of the POV notice continue to compromise Wikipedia and this article. Could the powers that be please discipline DXRAW again as the lesson has not been learnt or could they please rewrite this article in an unbiased and succinct fashion.--Silveriver 01:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is the dispute? The section is entirely too long but it appears to be well-sourced. --ElKevbo 04:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

The AFD notice placed in the Industrial Relations section was removed (a) as the article was not listed on the AFD page, (b) the link to the supposed-discussion of the AFD nomination was for a completely different article, and (c) it's (to the best of my knowledge) inappropriate and just incorrect to nominate a section of an article for deletion via the AFD process. You use the AFD process to nominate an ARTICLE for deletion. --ElKevbo 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sister schools

Hey everyone after looking at some other private schools wikipedia pages i noticed that newington's page is missing sister schools. as my editing skills are quite bad i thought i would just post here and who ever wants to can add it. the sister schools are MLC School, Burwood and Presbyterian Ladies College Sydney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harrisony (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Newington's sister schools are Uniting Church schools and as such would be MLC School, Ravenswood and Pymble Ladies College. Sbrandons 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Higher School Certificate

From the article:

In 2004, the results were again impressive

Comment: Clearly not NPOV.

From the article:

It is worth mentioning that simply enrolling in a high fee paying school does not ensure a good UAI, and hard work and determination are of more importance than the school attended.

Comment: I'm wondering why exactly this is termed "worth mentioning"? Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, with encyclopaedic content. Its purpose is surely not to give advice about what is someone's opinion about how to attain a good UAI.

From the article:

Students who score 90 or above in a subject and hence receive the highest band are placed on the merit list. In 2004, 58 boys achieved a total of 176 ‘top bands’ [citation needed], another outstanding effort.

Comment: The wording at the end, "another outstanding effort" is not neutral point of view.

From the article:

In 2005, however, the results were overwhelmingly dissapointing.

Comment: Disappointing from whose point of view? This should go. Again, it is not the role of Wikipedia to say whether the school's HSC results were good or poor, as this becomes extremely subjective. If this is to stay in, it needs to be a quote from a verifiable external source. Alternatively, the statistics can be reported without the biased commentary on them.

From the article:

Only one student gained a Premier's Award, and Newington was placed outside the top 100 schools in the state.

Comment: The context of this comment and the way that it uses the word "only" again fails the NPOV test.

From the article:

Considering that the fees of this school approach $20 000 a year, and Newington's success in other areas is very limited, these results are made even worse.

Comment: This is just opinion. It is not for Wikipedia to be making judgements about the fees a school charges. Nor subjective judgements about a school's results or achievements. This section is clearly some kind of battleground for advocates and critics of the school. Personally, I couldn't care less about Newington but I don't believe that this kind of bias should be brought to Wikipedia. It needs cleaning up so I'm tagging the article as not neutral. Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed DXRAW 12:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John McVicar To be appointed headmaster?

This entirely speculative and is unfounded among the academic / administration staff. Some explanation will be needed by 169.229.207.217. Trace route shows the I.P comes from Berkeley College, which is a tad odd itself considering the I.P has no servers associated with it. Can anyone help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.149.219 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

As a current student, I can tell you now that there are no plans to replace the Headmaster. John McVicar is the current Head of Year 7 and if anyone would to become Head master it would most likely be Mr Grant Williamson (Current Head of Stanmore campus (senior school)) or Mr Paul Bourke (current head of senior school y10-12) or Mr Jeff Snare (Head of Junior school-y7-9) --Harrisony 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SPA Adding POV

There are many Single Purpose Accounts adding unsouced quotes & changing quotes from newspapers to suit most there & most likely the schools administration Point of view. Per Wikipedia:Attribution policy Material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source & The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. DXRAW 04:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

DXRAW continues to remove quotes that do not suit the staff argument. A conflict of interest is apparent in DXRAW's editing. DXRAW does not own this article and needs to be disciplined.58.168.55.109 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IR Edits

  • 2006 Staff dispute has been reverted to 2006 Industrial Relations dispute because that is the correct title in a dispute like this. See Industrial Relations

This is a dispute between the Headmaster and staff about staffing not pay and conditions.Sbrandons 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"restructure that would also reduce their holidays." & "...negotiate collective arrangements covering salary and working conditions for staff" [2] & [3]

Those comments are by a Union and a newspaper not from the Headmaster or staff and so are disputable.Sbrandons 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And comments from them are not disputable? Not a valid point.
  • The quotes from Greens MLC Lee Rhiannon that were removed have been reverted cause it shows how much publicly the Industrial Relations dispute.

Publicity stunts by political parties come and go. Appropriate for this stunt to have come and gone.Sbrandons 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats no reason to remove it.

It is every reason to remove it - it is a stunt and of no relevance to the dispute.Sbrandons 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It shows the publicly of the dispute.
  • The IEU statement that was removed has been reverted as it shows results between the two parties involved.

Slanted material from one side of the dispute.Sbrandons 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain further, I see no POV only facts in that source.

If any of the material needs to remain, source it from the free press not the Union which was a party to a dispute that ended months ago.Sbrandons 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also sourced in a paragraph that you removed.
  • The removal of the teachers quotes of the moral after the agreement between the IEU & the school has been reverted as it shows the feeling among the staff towards the school.

Anonymous comments in a newspaper carry no weight.Sbrandons 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If they had no weight then they would not be there in the first place but they are. Have you thought about why they are Anonymous.

Of course we know why you think they are anonymous but the point still stands that they are and are of dubious value to this article.Sbrandons 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect.
  • The removal of the survey results have been reverted as it is sourced and shows the school moral and the headmasters response. DXRAW 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey results haven't been removed just incorrect statements about the Headmaster and a parent.Sbrandons 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No incorrect statments there just two differing views. Also this sentence has been removed "contrasting with 75 per cent who reported low or very low morale." DXRAW 06:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Herald has not produced evidence that the College has taken legal action against a parent as a result of the survey and the College has refuted this assertion so it is a non issue. Lets not make this article any longer than it already is with superfluos information. The sentence has been removed "contrasting with 75 per cent who reported low or very low morale." but the sentence "Just 6 percent reported high or very high morale" has remained - do we need to have both sentences plus one telling us how many were unsure and how many did like like the question and how many staff were away on the day!Sbrandons 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That does not make it a non issue. Yes we need both sentences as they are quoted. Also with the wide range of people editing the article it also shows that it is trying to be hidden. DXRAW 07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Can y'all please stop replying to one another inside one another's previous edits? At this point, I have no idea who wrote what and when in the above conversation. --ElKevbo 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)