Talk:New Beacon School

Article and school name
The name of this school appears to be The New Beacon School. Anyone object to a move? -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Tradition, Discipline & Terminology sections
These sections are not appropriate content for wikipedia. I have given links to the relevant policies and guidelines, selectively quoted from them, and given an example of where the deleted material fell short:

WP:V

''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.''

"The class room had to be disbanded as it was deemed a health hazard due to the large amount of mould growing on the walls. Recently it was found that the classroom contained asbestos and has therefore been sealed off."


 * Really?

WP:NOR

''Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas''

"This tradition originated from an ancient Yule ceremony which was started as a form of punishment to those who stole from the harvest."


 * Is there anything to confirm this?

WP:LIVING

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles

"Ian Funnel - a.k.a. Funky - in room 21, the longest serving teacher at the school and a former old boy"


 * I'm sure Mr Funnel would enjoy seeing his details published.

WP:NOTE

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"The worst punishment is known as a "minus". This is used for disciplinary action. The boy(s) have to knock on the common room door and ask for the minus book. Their name is then entered into the book whereupon it will be read out by the Headmaster in Friday Chapel. The boy is then force to stand up and walk down the aisle on his own and proceed to the Headmaster's office where he will receive a severe telling off. He then missees all break times for a week and is force to do oddjobs. Teachers have given minuses out over a wide range of offenses (ranging from breathing too loudly to trying to stab another boy)"


 * Who needs to know this information?


 * Ewen (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

content issues
I was asked to take a look at this article, and when I read it I have some concerns similar to editor Ewen's concern 7 years ago, then asking "Who needs to know this information?". Right now I am concerned that there has been no Talk page discussion since 2008, unless there was discussion that later was removed. The article covers topic of sexual abuse or allegations about it, which is difficult material to handle properly, and I don't see how this can be done without discussion. There should neither be whitewash erasing anything negative, nor should there be unencyclopedic overstatement, overemphasis. I am not particularly experienced in the types of issues here, but I believe that discussion of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines usually is helpful, and it should prove helpful here, too. Note perhaps there was text in the article which was fair and balanced and appropriate at some point according to the recency of events and Wikipedia policies, but which is no longer appropriate years later. Wikipedia's own understanding of what is appropriate has evolved, too. Note that even text which seems "fair" at one point but is unsourced should not survive: sourcing should be improved or the material should be deleted.

I have some catching up to do, but to start could I put forward one piece of the article to discuss. The article currently states:"Games kit consists of plain red or blue rugby shirts, tight fitting rugby league style blue elasticated shorts, long navy blue socks and black football boots. For hygiene reasons, the head of sport dictated that all boys are required to wear regulation navy or black swimming trunks."

This seems frankly a bit creepy and inappropriate, especially given that later in the article there is mention of sexual impropriety. I don't believe that other schools' articles have content like that. I would expect to delete all of that as unsourced and non-encyclopedic, but I will read up for a bit first and I would like to hear others' comments, first, too. Would anyone please comment? -- do ncr  am  01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Got rid. Unsourced bollocks. Cheers! Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  10:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I guess. I returned here with an example of coverage of clothes requirement at another school, Carlton le Willows Academy, where it is covered in one sentence with details relegated to footnote: "Sixth formers are not required to wear uniform, but are to adopt a smart casual dress code. This typically consists of (depending on gender) trousers, smart jeans or a skirt of a reasonable length; a shirt, blouse, smart polo or T-shirt  and/or a  sweater or cardigan. Footwear requirements demand appropriate shoes, boots or smart training shoes."

reference removed
I removed the following Telegraph 12 November 2008 reference from the article. Before I just added a different reference, this was appearing first in the list of references.

It was supporting merely the date of 1882 for founding of the school here, and is not used elsewhere in the article, so it gives the appearance to me that someone was stretching to get the sensational story into the article, inappropriately. The Telegraph article might or might not be used appropriately later in the article. By the way, when I read the school's history webpage (linked from what is now the first reference) I was not sure if it was 1863 or 1882 which is the founding date, but certainly some other source besides this one is more appropriate to establish that. -- do ncr  am  01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversy
I have edited this section to give a clear and factual account of the case as reported by the Daily Telegraph on line and the Sevenoaks Chronicle. As the dispute concerned statements made by the school in the press I have removed these. The dispute was finalised by the school apologising. Johnobrienuk (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here. I meant to discuss new suggestions here to develop consensus before editing into the article, but okay.  The "Controversy" section in the previous version before Johnobrienuk's edit was:
 * VERSION 1.
 * "In 2014, the Charities Commission became after allegations were made against a former teacher convicted of sexual offences in 2008. The police felt the student's evidence "did reach the threshold for a charge", but the case never got to court because prosecutors feared the victim would be too traumatised to take the stand" The paper also claimed that Woodward had been suspended during a previous police investigation involving allegations of sexual abuse but was allowed back to work."


 * "In 2015, Governors at New Beacon School issued an apology to the child in the case, which was rejected."


 * Hmm, that has a garbled first sentence.
 * VERSION 2. Going back further, to this version that editor Deb had restored, it was:
 * "In 2014, the Charities Commission became involved in a dispute between the school and the parents of a former pupil who claimed to have been affected by the actions of a former teacher who was convicted of sexual offences in 2008. The dispute stemmed from the school's public statement that the boy's allegation "was thoroughly investigated by the school, social services and the police and there was no case to answer". Headmaster Rowland Constantine subsequently left to be headmaster of Orwell Park school, and was replaced by Mike Piercy, who told the press that "a separate allegation by the family of a boy at the school was investigated internally, but no evidence of any wrongdoing was found to have taken place". The Sevenoaks Chronicle claimed that the police felt the student's evidence "did reach the threshold for a charge", but that the case never got to court because prosecutors feared the victim would be too traumatised to take the stand".  The paper also claimed that Woodward had been suspended during a previous police investigation involving allegations of sexual abuse but was allowed back to work."


 * "In 2015, Governors at New Beacon School issued an apology to the child in the case, who had been made an award by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of sexual abuse at the school by Paul Woodward, a former music teacher employed there. In issuing the apology, the Governors added the comment "We now understand that your role was significant in the process of bringing Mr. Woodward to justice. We would like to applaud you for this brave action". The young man rejected the apology."


 * VERSION 3. The following is what editor Johnobrienuk put in place:"In 2014, the Charity Commission for England and Wales urged New Beacon School to apologise to a former pupil in respect of statements made by the school to the Press. The statements related to allegations made by the boy against Paul Woodward, a former music teacher, for abusing him at the school between 2005 and 2006. In 2013, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) made an award to the boy in compensation for the abuse the CICA found he had suffered. The Sevenoaks Chronicle reported that Woodward, who was convicted of sexual misconduct offenses against other children and sent to prison indefinitely had been suspended from his post at the school during a previous police investigation involving allegations of sexual abuse but had been allowed back to work."


 * "The school apologised to the child in 2015, and applauded him for his bravery in bringing Woodward to justice."


 * I spent some time fixing citations (in versions 1 and 3), removing bare urls. This makes discernible the fact that those two versions use exactly the same 4 sources, so there seems to be no complaint about reliability of sources, in any difference of opinion.  Then I added version 2. Hmm, version 2 has at least one different source.  About Johnobrienk's change, I don't understand the second of three sentences: "As the dispute concerned statements made by the school in the press I have removed these."  Statements made to the press can be valid sources on what the school has said, at least.  Could you clarify what sentence and/or source you object to?  I think i would like to understand which statements are disputed. -- do  ncr  am  17:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much of a "dispute" left, possibly because, having given away his identity and laid himself open to the accusation of a conflict of interest (which he unquestionably has), Johnobrienk has begun editing in a more cautious manner and has stopped repeating himself and is making more of an effort to edit from a neutral point of view. Perhaps he is beginning to understand how wikipedia works. Deb (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Motto is incorrect
As far as I recall (I was a pupil there from 1984-1989) the motto is Ex Fumo Date Lucem, as written by Horace. If you Google the pages version it will display results for the Horace version. This should be updated. 77.97.51.70 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)