![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Welcome ... This is a very well made page. Particularly impressed by the well referenced alumni page. If you could get your main page to be similarly well referenced with 3rd party sources then it would be a B. Register on the schools page for a reassessment when ready. Victuallers 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just updated a section on the 'controversies' section. 219.79.88.126 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering if the controversy of 2000 is still relevant? It happened seven years ago and I feel it is just being used in this article as an attempt to further damage the reputation of the school. I don't think you can really compare a school today to what it was seven years ago, but that's just my opinion. I don't want to remove it without concensus though. Thoughts, opinions? Loopla 01:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DaGizza that one or two sentences would be more appropriate than a whole section. Im sure that Trinity is not the only school with bullying problems. I also don't feel that "A music teacher, Neal Winters, from the school was also charged with over 30 child sex offences. However Winter taught at the school decades before his convicted crimes" warrants inclusion. As stated, this individual taught at Trinity "decades before his convicted crimes", and from what I have read he was charged with crimes dating back to 1992, well after he finished working at Trinity and no Trinity students were involved. If we are going to start mentioning every past staff member of a school that has been convicted of a crime then we have a lot of work to do. Loopla 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the infamous boarding school incident, I feel it does warrant mention, as, unfortunate as it may be, it is actually still probably what the school is best known for, even as long as eight years on. As far as "elite" private school scandals go, this one really hit the fan. The publicity it recieved was unprecented. 60 accounts of sexual assault in a supposedly un-supervised boarding house is a fairly notable controversy, even if it did happen eight years ago, which even then, isn't actually that long. 211.30.122.32 ( talk) 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, Well I think we should just come to a conclusion since there are obviously going to be a lot of differing opinions on this matter. Concensus seems to be include this issue for now, and what is written at the moment is well referenced and to the point without emotion and unneccesary additions so I say keep what is there. However the Neil Winters part should be removed after 3 weeks as you suggested. Are we in agreement?? Hope so. Loopla 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
How can you possibly justify removing a piece of the school's history no matter how unflattering or how long ago it happened. Wikipedia is here to present truthful and accurate information to those who wish to view it. This_is_England
I don't understand, the source of the information is from the New South Wales Parlimentry Minutes, they do not come under copyright laws and are free for public citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by This is England ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to justify removal of the school's history. I have no connection of any type to the school or the parties involved in this matter. However, adding a lengthy recital of facts from a government hearing unduly highlights this single incident. A Wikipedia article, in addition to being truthful and accurate as you mentioned, must keep a neutral point of view. This precludes us from adding so much positive or negative information about a single incident that the article becomes unbalanced. My fear was that your edit did that; a more measured one that cited the hearing as a source might not. I do see that another editor objected over a possible copyright violation, but I agree with you that a transcript of a government hearing does not present a concern on that score. Xymmax ( talk) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel the subject does require mention under the schools controversies section, though i now in hindsight agree it needn't be the 'lengthy recital of facts from a government hearing'. Perhaps a shorter annotation could be made, though as you said, with a reference to the full transcript. This is England ( talk) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection in principle. If the edit doesn't unbalance the tone of the overall article, accurate and verifiable information should be included. I look forward to your edit. Xymmax ( talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made a new edit. I have tried to keep it as concise as possible and feel it outlines the issue quite clearly. Also i have inserted a reference to the full transcript. Hopefully this change should acceptable. If anyone has any problems could we please discuss them before undoing my changes. This is England ( talk) 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not notable? It is the controversies section we are discussing isnt it? How is a teachers sexual assult of a student 'not notable'. It was my understanding that the reference to the previous teacher was removed due to the fact his crimes were committed at another school, long after his dismissal from trinity. Where as in the case of Mr Doyle, the assult was committed on school grounds during his employment with Trinity. A completely different scenerio cannot be cited as a reason for removing information. As for the reference issue, there is not an issue with the reliability of my evidence, just that i do not have enough references. In that case i freely invite you to go to the New South Wales archieve and dig out newspaper articles from 1988. I would also like to point out it is near to impossible trying to find a court citation as these these are withheld from public access. "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references." It is not my job to find more references to add to this segment, I provided the basic information for other wikipedia users to build and improve upon. I will be undoing the removal of this segment and wish you luck on you quest for references. This is England ( talk) 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am assessing this article for WikiProject Schools as B / High on a request (apologies that it has taken four months to respond to an assessment request). Quite a good article in terms of length and organisation, and quite well referenced. This could get a good article rating with work. First, the introduction could be expanded as it is a little short for a long article - three long paragraphs will do, it should summarise the entire article. Second, the history section is a good length with pictures but the sourcing could be improved; there are some gaps and only one source is used, getting varitey as much as possible with sourcing is a good thing. Third, the school song. Has the copyright status of this been verified as ok for inclusion? Even if it has past consensus on the issue has been that the school song should be on Wikisource and linked from the article. Any sourced details about the song (history e.t.c.) are fine however. Forth, some sections such as 'House system' have no sources - even if they are primary sources, adding some is still good. Finally, The 'Curriculum' section looks incomplete and short, expansion would be nice there.
I am giving this article high importance, up from mid, due to the long history of the school, controversies, and significant alumni. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A possibly useful PD photograph of Hilliard: [1] 99of9 ( talk) 06:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, deleted replicated text; will paraphrase and repost soon. Z 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
db-copyvio}}
tag.
Stickee
(talk)
12:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)@ Zenith0120, StAnselm, and Castlemate: I propose to merge Trinity Grammar School Preparatory School into Trinity Grammar School (New South Wales). The Prep School is simply a campus of the main school and I feel that the content in the Prep School article can easily be explained in the context of the School. The main school article is of a reasonable size, subject to further editing (currently in progress), that the merging of the Prep School will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Please discuss your support or opposition to the merger. Based on feedback, I propose to complete the merger by 31 May 2019. Rangasyd ( talk) 14:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)