Talk:Newington College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt 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, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations:	McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School

Portal	Newington College is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 NPOV? 2 IR Controversy 3 AFD 4 Sister schools 5 The Higher School Certificate 6 John McVicar To be appointed headmaster? 7 WP:SPA Adding POV

[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).

[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)