Jump to content

Talk:Newington College/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Protected

Article is now fully protected due to persistent revert-warring amongst numerous editors. Can you guys please try to come to some consensus here? - Alison? 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please reinsert the following final paragraph vandalised by DXRAW so at least this article is vaguely up to date. "In October, a facilitator was appointed to assist the College through issues that were generating significant concern amongst the teaching staff. These issues have been addressed by a working group established by Council and coordinated by the facilitator in the first three months of 2007. The working group first met on 24 January 2007 and has been asked to report to the College Council by April 2007 whereupon Council will consider its recommendations. [4]" Earja 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because this page was protected due to disputes, it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to make significant content chagnes until it is unprotected. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version, only a way to prevent edit warring. CMummert � talk 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So where is the discussion since protection - deafly silence. Until this article is written by someone without a conflict of interest it should be removed as the current version as edited by the main protaganist is protected, with or without endorsement, and not a word is to be heard from DXRAW. An agreement was brokered by the Union months ago so that part of the story is dead and is hardly worth writing about in historical terms. The teachers who are still unhappy with their Union brokered agreement are being dealt with by the facilitator but they don't wish that story to be heard. This is not the Arab-Israeli Conflict so lets keep it to a paragraph and get on with something important. 124.183.179.94 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

By your reasoning anything that happens in the past is not worth reporting. Its a part of the whole dispute. Also can you explain the number of other non resisted users that side with you, I'm seeing alot of WP:SOCK With WP:COI DXRAW 08:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Industrial Relations dispute

This is a poorly written, top heavy, out-dated and non-neutral article and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.102.242.189 (talk • contribs).

Once again this section has come under attack from vandals on behalf of the school. ExtraDry 03:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this section is of limited interest and of dubious value. I have placed an edited version in the history section. The previous version of this minor event was longer than the than the 144 year history of the College - this seems excessive. Waterdanks 04:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note The above comment is from a WP:SPA account. ExtraDry 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Funny. It appears to me that while our friend is new here he or she has contributed to other articles (although he or she may be doing that specifically in response to your accusation but let's assume good faith. It would appear that you spend a significant amount of your own time and energy on this one topic, ExtraDry/DXRAW; accusing others of being "single purpose accounts" seems a bit hypocritical. --ElKevbo 12:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That i do because of all the vandalism to it. ExtraDry 12:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
First, don't edit my comments to change their meaning or content. Second, your continual accusations and shrill cries of vandalism wore thin long ago. You're welcome to disagree with other editors without accusing them of vandalism but you are not welcome to own articles and refuse to compromise. --ElKevbo 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have returned this section to my revision as there has been no comment on why it shouldn't be moved and shortened. I repeat that it is more appropriate in the history section as it appears to now be history. It hasn't been updated as it now appears to be an issue that has been resolved. It was a very minor episode that was accounting for a huge amount of space. I welcome comment on my work and hope that a meaningful dialogue will develop but will be very dissappointed if the revised section is again trashed without explanation. By the way - what is a three revert rule and how does it work? Is it relevant here?Waterdanks 00:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule (3RR) says that we can not revert an article to the same version more than three times in a 24 hour period. It's intended to help prevent edit wars and encourage dialog and discussion among editors. The rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per 24 hour period and you can be blocked for obvious edit warring even if you have made fewer than three reverts. It definitely applies to this article and the current dispute (but I haven't checked to see how close you and ExtraDry/DXRAW are to breaking the 3RR).
With respect to the current dispute: I can't say that I'm a fan of removing all mention of this (or any other verifiable and notable) incident from the article. It seems too much like historical revisionism or whitewashing. However, I have stated on multiple occasions that the very large section that has existed in this article is way too long and gives undue weight to this incident. I would greatly prefer if the section were dramatically shortened to a few sentences summarizing the incident and its lasting impact, if any. I think that is not only what is best for this encyclopedia article but a great compromise between yourself and ExtraDry/DXRAW. --ElKevbo 00:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been dramatically shortened before. A WP:RFCU has been filed. ExtraDry 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when it was "dramatically shortened" but it seems to me to be far too long. I did not remove all mention of the dispute but placed it in a more appropriate posistion and edited it to a more appropriate length. Without any discussion an editor continues to revert it but makes no effort to improve it or to update it. How can this be sorted out?Waterdanks 06:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit comes from a new account, straight after removal from possible sockpuppets, your first posts are the removal of sourced infomation. Also would you care to explain why your edits are taken from the school website which is a violation of copyright. The infomation you have added in this dif [5] is taken from [6] ExtraDry 13:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The changes made to the academic area of this article were useful, if not the last word on the subject. The removal of sntences stating something like "as with all schools in NSW" which pepper the whole section and are tedious and unecessary, was a very good start. Theses sites aren't mean't to be a battle ground between different school systems in New South Wales. All school entries seem to rely heavily on the website material of their schools. I can't see that the changes made to Newington College by Waterdanks are a copyright breach as they appear to be deletions rather than adiing new material. If there are breaches ExtraDry/DXRAW should show them word for word, as was done with Tom Nash, rather than present a whole website as evidence. It is interesting to note that ExtraDry/Draw was very keen for the Nash paragragh to stay without changes or rewriting to protect copyright. This editor will not allow any other editor to work on Newington College. The recent revert is a good example of how ExtraDry/DXRAW removes changes without even seeing how necessary some of them are. The disambiguation of David Scott to David Scott(headmaster) was removed so again the link is to an American astronaut. How can we solve this problem without it becoming the usual slanging match?Archifile 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That revert was a blanket revert because of the amount of copyright violations made by Waterdanks ExtraDry 11:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a poor excuse for a sloppy edit. If there's a copyright violation, remove it. But don't just blanket revert when there are good edits mixed in with bad ones. --ElKevbo 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to copyright violations its best to act fast in order to protect from any legal action. ExtraDry 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have placed this extended introduction to this section and it has twice been removed wiith spurious expalnations:-

  • During 2006, the press reported on an industrial relations dispute at Newington when 40 department heads and housemasters were forced to reapply for their positions in a restructure that would also reduce their holidays. The Headmaster, David Scott, said that "The action was taken after a comprehensive review of the school and had nothing to do with the federal government's Work Choices reforms. He said the review found departments that achieved the best results were those that were headed by teachers who worked more than just during term time." Scott said that some senior staff had refused to undertake additional training out of school hours and that this was the cause of the current dispute. "What we are trying to do is refine what we do so that we can do it better." The Headmaster, speaking on ABC radio, said "The way in which we are trying to do (that) is to require staff to do professional development preparation in non-term time and that's the issue with the staff. It is not anything to do with pay."

It is using the previous cited reference and all material has been taken from that reference. They are quotes and are in inverted comas. Why should it be removed. I will not be forced into an edit war by another editor but would appreciate some assistance. It looks to me like it is just material that someone else doesn't want to see!Tallum 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)— Tallum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

It was decided ages ago that extra infomation was not needed. ExtraDry 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Decided by whom, when and why? The edit summary for it's removal seems confused; "the sentence was copied direct from the cited source, Makes opening parragraph too long and are not direct quotes." Either it was "copied direct" or they "are not direct quotes." I notice you are now calling for the speedy deletion of anything I have edited since registering with Wikipedia. Is there a reason for this?Tallum 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Decided by consensus. One article is not everything. Please note talkpages are not a forum. ExtraDry 10:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ExtraDry has removed my last comment from the talkpage - is that acceptable behaviour? Please look at the history to see what has been removed. What constitutes consensus? What do you mean by, "One article is not everything"? If talk pages are not forums where do I go to find answers to my problems? Why is ExtraDry calling for the deletion of articles I have worked on and calling me a sockpuppet? What have I walked into? 144.132.194.96 11:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The last comment was from me (144.132.194.96 11:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)) but I forgot to log on - sorry. Clearly I'm stupid as I still wasn't logged on - harrasment will do that to you! Tallum 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic

This is the material as presented by Waterdanks after editing the existing material. Waterdanks removed material that has remained without references since February 2007 and other repetitive material.

"Newington's has a non-selective admission policy. The school teaches the core curriculum outlined by the NSW Board of Studies (BOS) between K-8. In addition to this curriculum, the students study one major language other than English. Competent students at Newington during years 7-8 (and onwards if a student decides to) study Latin. From years 9-12, students adhere to the Board of Studies curriculum standards that all NSW schools follow. To ensure the interests of all students are catered for, be they academic, commercial, creative, sporting, technological or otherwise, the College offers a wide range of courses. The curriculum, in tandem with cocurricular and pastoral care programs, attempts to provide a rounded liberal education designed to equip students with the skills, knowledge and understanding they will need to face the challenges of the years ahead. Newington comes under jurisdiction of the Board of Studies and follows the same set of rules, and offers from the same list of courses, as other NSW schools. It prepares students for the School Certificate and Higher School Certificate. The IB will be introduced at Newington in 2008."

This is ExtraDry/DXRAW's evidence for copyright breach:-

'Newington College has a proud academic record. In 2006 eight Newington boys received Premier's Awards. (This prize is awarded to students who achieve over 90 in each of 10 units or more. In 2002 and 2003, Newington boys received 10 and 12 awards, more than any other non-selective boys' school in NSW. In 2004, 11 Newington boys received awards.) for All-Round Excellence in the NSW Higher School Certificate, with three boys appearing in the HSC showcases Exemplar, Encore and DesignTech. For further details go to the HSC page. To ensure the interests of all students are catered for, be they academic, creative, sporting, technical, commercial or otherwise, the College dedicates considerable resources to offering a wide range of courses. In tandem with our extensive co-curricular and pastoral care programs, this broad curriculum provides a rounded liberal education designed to equip students with the skills, knowledge and understanding they will need to face the challenges of the years ahead. Please refer to the Academic Guide, on the Subjects Info page, for detailed information about courses offered at our secondary school. The Newington Homework Policy and study guidelines are printed in the Student Diary. Free homework help is offered locally by Marrickville Library. Download this flyer for full details PDF 99KB. Curriculum details for our preparatory schools can be found under 'Lindfield Prep' and 'Wyvern House' under 'K-6 Preps' in the main menu. For further enquiries, please contact Julia Shea, our Head of Curriculum."

Is there a copright problem? I don't think so, but I'm not prepared to alter it until we have some other opinions on the matter. Please help.Archifile 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You fail to mention that infomation was taken off the schools website so yes there is a copyright problem. ExtraDry 10:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not making sense - what of Waterdanks edit was taken from the College web-site? The material you have placed as evidence does not back up your assertion.Archifile 04:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

History

Should we be worried about this section as a copyright violation?

From the Newington College website: "Support for the concept was fostered by the Rev John Manton, who successfully put a motion before the Methodist Conference of 1862. Manton was later appointed Principal-elect of the new school and is rightly regarded as the founder of the College.

At the Conference it was decided that the institution should be "decidedly Wesleyan in character" and at the very start it was expected to "be open to the sons of parents of all religious denominations" – a philosophy which remains an essential ethos of the College 140 years on.

There being no suitable buildings in Sydney Town, a property was leased at Silverwater on the Parramatta River. Formerly belonging to the pioneer Blaxland family, 'Newington House' was the centrepiece of a 1200 acre estate of the same name.

On Thursday 16 July, 1863, 16 "miserable boys" – as one of their number later described them – gathered together in the gloomy winter twilight at the old mansion. Newington had begun.

The College prospered and during its time at Silverwater – known as 'the River Days' – it made a significant impact on the education scene in the colony, as well as on the sports field. It was the first school to play rugby football, the first school in Australia to hold an athletics carnival, it was virtually undefeated at rifle shooting – often in contests against mature army and marine teams – and it contributed to the membership of early Australian cricket teams.

With these successes came expanding numbers, and it soon became clear that Newington House was not to be a suitable home into the future. More extensive premises closer to the city were sought and a bequest of land – the Stanmore Estate, from which the suburb gains its name – provided the opportunity. And so, in 1880, the River Days came to an end.

Then began the enormous task of raising funds to erect a suitable building for the provision of accommodation for theological students, an essential part of the scheme from the outset. One of several entrants in a competition to design the new College buildings, a young colonial architect named Thomas Rowe was selected and works began in 1876. Rowe later designed several significant buildings including Sydney Hospital and The Great Synagogue. By 1880, the now heritage-listed sandstone building, known today as the Founders' Wing, was completed and the great migration from Silverwater to Stanmore began, taking with it the name Newington; by resolution of the College Council, the name was to be perpetuated on the new site.

The College has remained at Stanmore. From 70 students at the time of the move, it now has about 1600 with an additional Preparatory School on the North Shore, first at Killara but now at Lindfield.

In latter years, particularly since World War II, the College buildings and facilities have improved and expanded significantly – the latest of which are the Physical Education Centre (on a site where there has been a gymnasium since 1890 and a swimming pool since 1894) a new boatshed at Abbotsford and new Library and Design & Technology facilities.

The Stanmore-based Preparatory School at Wyvern House relocated in 1998 to new premises in Cambridge Street. There are Boarding facilities catering for boys from Years 7 to 12.

Over the decades, the College has seen the services of a number of distinguished Headmasters. The Rev Dr C J Prescott [1900 to 1931] is the school's longest serving Headmaster – Prescott was the most influential educator of his day in Australia – and Mr P R Le Couteur (1931–1948) who guided the College through the recovery from the Great Depression and through World War II. Mr L R D Pyke [1952 to 60] initiated the post-war building programme and Mr A J Rae (1972 to 1993) developed an academic, sporting and extracurricular balance which is the envy of other institutions.

Mr Rae was succeeded by Mr Michael Smee in mid-1993. Mr Smee spent a decade at the helm, overseeing major building projects including the relocation of Wyvern House Preparatory School to new premises in Cambridge St, Stanmore.

The current Headmaster, Mr David G Scott, took over in mid-2003."

From Wikipedia:-

"Support for the concept of Newington College was fostered by the Rev John Manton, who successfully put a motion before the Methodist Conference of 1862. Manton was later appointed Principal-elect of the new school and is rightly regarded as the founder of the College.

At the Conference it was decided that the institution should be "decidedly Wesleyan in character" and at the very start it was expected to "be open to the sons of parents of all religious denominations" – a philosophy which remains an essential ethos of the College 140 years on.

There being no suitable buildings in Sydney Town, a property was leased at Silverwater on the Parramatta River. Formerly belonging to the pioneer Blaxland family, 'Newington House' was the centrepiece of a 1200 acre estate of the same name.

The River Days at Newington, where the first students gathered at Silverwater.With the successes of Newington College came expanding numbers, and it soon became clear that Newington House was not to be a suitable home into the future. More extensive premises closer to the city were sought and a bequest of land – the Stanmore Estate, from which the suburb gains its name – provided the opportunity and the school relocated in 1880.

Then began the real funding task of raising funds to erect a suitable building for the provision of accommodation for theological students, an essential part of the scheme from the outset. One of several entrants in a competition to design the new College buildings, a young colonial architect named Thomas Rowe was selected and works began in 1876. Rowe later designed several significant buildings including Sydney Hospital and The Great Synagogue. By 1880, the now heritage-listed sandstone building, known today as the Founders' Wing, was completed and the school moved to Stanmore. The College Council decided that the name Newington College should be continue to be used despite the move to the new site.

The College has remained at Stanmore. From 70 students at the time of the move, it now has about 1600 with an additional Preparatory School on the North Shore, first at Killara but now at Lindfield.

In latter years, particularly since World War II, the College buildings and facilities have improved and expanded significantly – the latest of which are the Physical Education Centre (on a site where there has been a gymnasium since 1890 and a swimming pool since 1894) a new boatshed at Abbotsford and new Library and Design & Technology facilities.

The Stanmore-based Preparatory School at Wyvern House relocated in 1998 to new premises in Cambridge Street. There are Boarding facilities catering for students from Years 7 to 12.

Over the decades, the College has seen the services of a number of headmasters, including particularly, The Rev Dr Charles Prescott (1900 to 1931), the school's longest serving headmaster and Tony Rae AM (1972 to 1993) who sought to develop an academic, sporting and extracurricular balance.

Mr Rae was succeeded by Michael Smee in mid 1993 whose term as headmaster saw major building projects undertaken including the relocation of Wyvern House Preparatory School to new premises in Cambridge St, Stanmore. The current headmaster is David Scott who commenced in mid 2003."

Should the history section be removed until it is rewritten?

Definitely. --ElKevbo 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sport

The following para re-inserted by ExtraDry/DXRAW is nonsense and should be removed. "Participation in sport is an important part of a student's progress through school. Not only is sport deemed to be important, it is also compulsory, and the limited number of positions available in all sports other than Rugby has lead to the creation of such promising teams as the Under 14 G's. This is a guideline set out by the Board of Studies to which all schools must adhere. Through properly staffed and controlled games and activities, a student will reach the goals set out by the Board of Studies PD/H/PE program that all public and private schools must reach."Archifile 05:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD then ExtraDry 10:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This was part of the edit by Waterdanks that you reverted and still haven't explained the copyright issues - your evidence for this (as shown above) is also nonsense. Archifile 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Newingtons' Union

An editor as pasted an advert tag on the Old Newingtonians' Union section but has left nothing on this page to help understand their action. This is in no way an advertisement but a history and description of the Union. I have removed the tag. Archifile 02:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the impropper removal of the tag, No chages had been made to that section. It might not be an advertisement but reads like an advertisement and thus needs to be rewritten. ExtraDry 10:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Rewritten ExtraDry 10:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information this section does not need to list every event that the union does. I have rewritten it. ExtraDry 07:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This section appears to be well written and referenced, covers activities of interest and some aspects of the ONU's 112 year history and is shorter that the preceeding article on an inductrial dispute that lasted for only months and has been over for months. Why does it need to be changed? Mitchplusone 08:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information this section does not need to list every event that the union does. Also listing other jobs of past Presidents is not on par with WP:MOS ExtraDry 08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Newington

I have written the following as a history of Newington and it has been removed for a supposed copyright violation:

At the Methodist Conference of 1862 the Rev John Manton proposed that a collegiate institute, "decidedly Wesleyan in character", be founded in Sydney. It was expected that the school would "be open to the sons of parents of all religious denominations" and on Thursday 16 July 1863 the Wesleyan Collegiate Institute opened with 16 boys and a small number of theological students. As no suitable buildings were available in Sydney at the time Newington House, the centrepiece of the 1200 acre Blaxland family estate at Silverwater, was leased. Newington College, as the school soon became known, prospered during its time on the Parramatta River and in 1869 was the first Australian school to play rugby football (against the University of Sydney) and soon after was the first school in Australia to hold an athletics carnival. The Newington College Cadet Unit is the oldest corps in the Australian Army Cadets. Expanding student numbers meant that more extensive premises closer to the city were required. A bequest, by John Jones, of land at Stanmore saw the College move to the newly fashionable inner-city suburbs in 1880. Seventy school and theological students migrated from Silverwater to Stanmore and took residence in the grand stone ediface, designed by Thomas Rowe, that is still the centrepiece of Newington. By resolution of the College Council, the name Newington College was perpetuated on the new site and Newington has remained at Stanmore ever since. A gymnasium was built in 1890 and a swimming pool was opened 1894. Newington ceased to be a Methodist theological training school in 1913 when Leigh College was founded at Enfield. In 1921 a stone War Memorial, designed by Old Newingtonian William Hardy Wilson, was opened in memory of those old boys who had paid the supreme sacrifice in World War I. A seperate preparatory school was first opened in 1921 after a bequest by Sir Samuel McCaughey and it became known as Wyvern House when a new building was opened by Old Newingtonian Sir Percival Halse Rogers in 1938. In 1925 a rowing facility was built at Abbotsford and in 1957 an additional preparatory school was founded on the North Shore - first at Killara but now at Lindfield. Since World War II, the College buildings and facilities have expanded significantly. A new Physical Education Centre and a new boatshed at Abbotsford are two of the most recent additions. In 1998, Wyvern House moved to a seperate campus in Cambridge Street, Stnmore. [1]

This is the website history that I took it from and cited as the source with additional information from the College histories listed in the bibliography. In reading it do others see a copyright violation: Click here for history

I would appreciate advice and will re-write the section if others think it is neccessary. Mitchplusone 12:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
(i have removed the text of that website from the talk page, that is a copyright violation. I have replaced it with a link to the text).Twenty Years 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the history section, and the website in question, i have come to the conclusion, that whilst the article is sourced from that website, it is in no way a copyright violation. What must be remembered here is that we must use sources that are external from the school (eg. not by the school or its sub branches: alumni etc). Twenty Years 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So should the enlarged history be re-instated or not? This will also help determine if the section on the Headmaster, removed at the same time, should be re-instated. Mitchplusone 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The headmaster section should be removed or a parrgraph written about all headmasters. ExtraDry 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The table of former Headmasters leads readers to wiki articles on most of the men who have served as Headmasters of Newington and ExtrDry has previously called for the deletion of a number of them and in one case successfully. I would happily upgrade David Sott to a wiki article but I imagine all hell would break loose. Mitchplusone 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to WikiProject Schools, a list of headmasters is fine, so that shouldnt be deleted. It makes it even better if theyre notable too (in many of the cases on Newington). Twenty Years 08:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the list of headmasters im talking about the parragraph about david scott. One thing that the sockpuppets should think about before wriiting any article about anybody is if that person passes WP:NOTE ExtraDry 10:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, comments such as those (unless proven to be true), are unhelpful. Remember: comment on the text, not the contributor. Ill have a look at the section now. Twenty Years 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the section on the current headmaster, it is pure cruft. If hes notable, put it into an article. If hes not, his info isnt going here. Twenty Years 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They are proven to be true. Four IP & Five usernames have been blocked for sockpuppet offences. ExtraDry 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless this exact user is proven to be a sockpuppet, then he is not a sock, and you need to AGF. Please dont make accusations, its hard enough with alledged SPA's on both sides of the equation here. Twenty Years 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:DUCK ExtraDry 20:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:KETTLE Loopla 21:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not been or ever will be a sockpuppet. Take your rudeness elsewhere. ExtraDry 07:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Extra, thats nice to know youre not a sockpuppet. I think Loopla's comments are 100% fine, taking into consideration of course, your comments. Thank you. Twenty Years 09:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IR Disupte

I think the answer here is for Mitch to place an outdated tag on the section, as it may appear to be outdated. The section needs to be comprehesive and cover all angles of the dispute, so shortening it probably isnt too much of an option, maybe lengthening all other parts of the article is a better option. Twenty Years 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I am assessing this article for WikiProject Schools after a request. This was quite a difficult assessment, but for now giving B / High. Article clearly covers a lot with plenty of references and pictures, with no series problems I can see. This article could well become GA in the future, especially if this dispute is fully resolved; a peer review would be good to help achieve this. I am giving this article High importance for now, has a important history and no shortage of alumni, giving Top importance should also be considered. Camaron1 | Chris 11:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am now giving this article Top importance, making it the second top importance school article in Australia, seems to be in the position to be so. Camaron1 | Chris 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC) After doing some research, there appear to be at least three articles in a similar position for Australia, we could give them all top importance, though only one or two schools per country are generally supposed to be given top importance - one school in Australia has been agreed as top so I will leave this one as high for now. Camaron1 | Chris 16:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think its worth a "Top Importance" - all of the headmasters are notable, because the school is so notable. Twenty Years 11:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your right a lot of headmasters have their own article, which convinces me. With a mandate of another opinion I will re-give the article top importance now. Camaron1 | Chris 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have changed this assessment to High importance, the school is very notable, but it isnt like the top 2 or 3 schools in Australia notable. Your original downgrade was correct. Twenty Years 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I should add that most of the headmasters and presidents seem to have pages because they served here, rather than other notable achievements. I'm not criticising, merely a passing judgment. Jame§ugrono 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jame you are correct. If you look at who created the pages it is one user using many accounts. The school is just wanting to big note themselves. ExtraDry 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this at WT:WPSCH/A. Camaron1 | Chris 19:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems an odd assessment of the careers of the headmasters and presidents when you consider that this is a list of some of the other posistions they held:-

I wonder sometimes when I read such comments if people exactly read articles. Waterdanks (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2006 Industrial Dispute

This section details a significant event in the recent history of Newington. However, given the dispute is now more than a year old and the report to the Council was made in April 2007, it is appropriate to reduce the length of the section to avoid placing undue weight on it in the context of the article. It is also important that it be updated to reflect the final report having been received - the previous version was written prior to April 2007 and was out of date as discussed above.

I make these comments because I note that a minor edit war seems to be under way to restore the pre-April 07 text. I consider this text to be both outdated and overly detailed, and have restored the newer version to the article. There appears to be a consensus for this, as three editors have now restored the new text vs the one IP (associated with an indefinitely blocked user) who prefers the earlier one.

As always, disagreements and other opinions are welcome. Let's discuss here before continuing to revert the article. Euryalus (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Loopla (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made some minor changes to include some of the removed infomation and shortned it. Did any body else notice that the IP 218.214.39.38 who removed alot of infomation with the edit summary of "edit" [7] which could be called vandlism also editied the David Scott (headmaster) page and removed the IR infoamtion from that page with the edit summary of "removing pov" [8] but that was restored. 59.167.238.146 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ONU Presidents

In my opinion the long list of ONU Presidents is not really suitable for a wikipedia article, especially since most of them are not notable. Its quite similar to a list of past school captains which is usually not deemed encyclopedic (e.g. see the discussion at Talk:Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield). I don't want to remove the list without consensus, especially after the Patrician Brother's College debacle, so would appreciate some thoughts/opinions. Cheers. Loopla (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If an article is made on the ONU, then the information should be placed there. The information in the list format doesnt belong on this page, what could happen is the list could be converted to prose, eg; Notable former ONU presidents include; Person X, who later became a member of parliament. Other than possibly making them into prose, the list has no real place on wikipedia. Twenty Years 14:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and it just occured to me that being ONU Presidents, they would also be Newington alumni, and therefore the notable ONU Presidents would be listed at List of Old Newingtonians. So maybe something along the lines of "ONU President year-year" could be added to those who are both notable and Presidents. Just another option. I hope that made some sense. Loopla (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, agree with above. Twenty Years 14:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have been bold and have removed the table. However, I have added (ONU President year-year) to the relevant notable alumni at List of Old Newingtonians. Loopla (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I,ve been equally bold and added the notable Presidents back into the article and will remove the references to their terms of office from the List of Old Newingtonians as they clutter that list. I will endeavour to write articles on the red inked Presidents that appear notable. This may take a little while so I trust we can be patient about this. Castlemate (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ A Short History of the College Retrieved 25.9.2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newington_College/Archive_1&oldid=1144733549"