Talk:Parktown Boys' High School

Scandals
Need to include deep heat penis initiation and waterpolo fondling. The article creates the impression that every thing is fine.

Corporal Punish
An article about this school is not complete without a section on corporal punishment, coercion, initiation.

Notable Alumni & Parktonian Language
I'm interested in hearing about the any Notable Alumni that I might have left off the list (Google is great but not all knowing). Please add or delete as appropriate.

I'm also really interested in knowing how the Parktonian slang has developed over the years. Surely there were a lot of yiddish/Jewish words used in the 50s and 60s, Afrikaans later on and now where boys use 'brrrrr', 'aw-e', 'che-de', and 'ghey'. What were the slang words used in your day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpythegimpy (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Initiation
People reading the page should be aware of the school's initiation policy (if there is one). The section on initiation should be expanded and include past initiation practices at the school (especially what happened in 2009, the headmasters responsiblity) and the present policy / practice on initiation. The article on the school would not be objective if these facts are not present on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ax45632 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Initiation is part of the schools history. Bad things happened in the past. An article about the school must be objective and not an advertisement that makes the school look good and conveniently glosses over certain uncomfortable events from the past. I have (re)added the subsection on the 2009 initiation scandal. Ax45632 (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Many schools have had similar scandals in the past, does Parktown Boys deserve to have special attention paid to it over and above the school's other attributes? Especially as, by all accounts, the school dealt successfully with the incident and as a result have prevented further occurrences. Nor is there any suggestion that the culture of initiation has remained entrenched or more pervasive than at other South African all-boys' schools. If anything, given the passage of time and the lack of any recurrence I would recommend that the mention of the controversy be reduced in size over time. This is how we treat similar-magnitude scandals at other schools and institutions. Darren (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Darren, thanks for your interest. Yes I agree initiation practices (good and bad) at any other school belong on the page for that school and all attributes of the school should be mentioned. Whether initiation is more, less or equally entrenched at PBHS than at another school, does not mean the article should not list practices (past and present) at PBHS. I am worried about reducing what happened in 2009. It is verifiable fact which wont be reduced by time (well only if people forget...sigh). You say that by all accounts the school dealt successfully with the incident. But by whose account? And what exactly were those "various training and development programmes" mentioned in the article (and more importantly is the training repeated each year) What's important is the objectivity of the article. The article must not be an advertisement for PBHS.Alex Xand (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex. My point is that any institution, especially a school with a long history, will inevitably experience scandals like this at some point. What we as Wikipedia editors need to be careful of is providing undue weight to any particular incident, especially as the tendency is to overemphasise incidents while they're current and in the news. We especially need to be cautious about what may be isolated incidents, as placing too much emphasis on those can wrongly create the impression of a general practice where there is none.


 * Is this true in the case of the Parktown Boys' initiation scandal? It's hard to say. Without being in the school we can't tell first-hand whether the measures the school took after the scandal were successful in halting the practice or whether it continues. All we can go on is the fact that despite the lens the school has been under there have been no further reports of violent initiations for the past few years. That means that the only information available to us as editors suggests that the incident was likely isolated. It's certainly doubtful that the school's administrators are happy to sit back and allow it to happen again, especially as the previous headmaster's term was curtailed as a result.


 * So in my view it's not really relevant what the training consisted of or whether it is repeated each year, as we're editors not investigate reporters. Our job is to provide the most accurate summary of a subject based on available public information, not to attempt to uncover the 'truth' behind any particular situation. Accordingly, the available evidence suggests that if initiation was pervasive at Parktown, it no longer appears to be so. Until that changes, the section on the initiation scandal must be gradually scaled down as the years progress in order to avoid giving it undue weight in the larger history of the school. Darren (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Darren, well put. I was thinking perhaps the best is to create a separate article (on the scandal). This would avoid creating an incorrect impression of the school. But I'm new at wiki so I don't know if this is appropriate.Alex Xand (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to do so, though I doubt there is sufficient objective information to justify an article of its own. My own view on this is that what exists already is sufficient although the sourcing could be improved while also clarifying some aspects such as detailing the correctional steps taken if those have been made public. Darren (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the sources need improving. I've added 2 sources (the Star's first article on the incident was on 17 February and the Stars article when the police came to the school on the 3 June 2009). @Simpythegimpy where did you get the information that the school did training and development programme ?Alex Xand (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Going back to your earlier comment. What is the right thing to do (concerning what content to add to a page)? A user 100 yrs (longterm) from now wants a chronology of facts (founding, location, headmasters, number of pupils each year, graduation results, notable alumnis, notable events). From these facts someone can form their own impression. If something is missing how can the page be trusted (did some try to hide something?)


 * Concerning "Reduce / scale back": the page is not a criminal record that gets expunged for good behaviour. The list of alumnis is not reduced when one of them dies or one of them does something bad. The list is extended with time. A list of notable events (both good and bad) should be extended with time and the events fleshed out with details.


 * The scandal is in the wrong place. It is not a tradition just an event that happened in 2009.Alex Xand (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Submitted article for review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Parktown_Boys_Initiation_Incident_February_2009 Alex Xand (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Orientation and Initiation
@Simpythegimpy Alex Xand (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Why did you delete the entry on the initiation scandal - spelling, grammar, factually incorrect, not verifiable?
 * 2) Please confirm that new scholars are really made to carry bricks and learn names off by heart ? Seems pointless to carry bricks. What's the point? Did you mean to write something else.
 * 3) What is a PT session ?
 * 4) What is an old Pot ?
 * 5) What is the reason / history behind new scholars wearing a button ?
 * 6) The word fun does not seem appropriate (it is too subjective - fun for whom?). What are the other activities?

Headmaster

 * 1) Which of the headmasters attended the school ?

T.P. Clarke
This sentence seems subjective / one sided / biased:

"Generations of Old Boys will remember his stentorian command in class: 'Squats!'"

The man was a tyrant who happily dished out corporal punished with his stentorian command 'Bend over!'.

User7818 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right he was a bit of a dictator. I was personally never hit by Mr Clarke, and I was taught by him in the late 90s and after corporal punishment was abolished I don't think there were any official jackings in his capacity as a Headmaster. He was quite a good guy if you weren't a bad boy I guess. Were you a naughty boy? After having a one sided view of the man as a student I got to know him as my boss there, and he was quite a good guy overall, who did his best for the school. Like anyone, he wasn't perfect.

Confirmation needed on why he retired. Alex Xand (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * normal retirement (at 65 yrs)
 * curtailed (as mentioned by Darren above)?
 * voluntary early retirement (to avoid disciplinary hearing?)


 * All of them with the exception of the first and current headmasters attended the school. Mr Clarke retired as planned, when he turned 65, half way through a school year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpythegimpy (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting of 2009 Initiation Incident
Simpythegimpy wrote in the edit summary "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy."

These are the 3 paragraphs that were removed:


 * In February 2009 a parent removed her son from the school after he was submitted to an initiation ceremony by matric pupils during the night of 2 February 2009 . The parent later took the matter to court . The case was subsequently struck off the court roll. . Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against members of the school staff by the Gauteng Department of Education . The deputy principal was found not guilty and the charges against the headmaster were dropped when he retired.


 * A month after the incident, The Star reported on an inspection during which a matric boy attacked a grade 10 pupil for his haircut.


 * As a result of the 2 February incident, the school participated in various training and development programmes to ensure that incidents such as these do not occur and are prevented as far as possible.

Alex Xand (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no mongering (mongering = Sell or offer for sale from place to place (dictionary= wordweb)). EDIT x 2: Perhaps this incident is undesirable or discreditable but that doesn't mean it should be wiped from the page. You can't choose nice facts and ignore unpleasant facts. Alex Xand (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The information comes from a newspaper (The Star, Cape Argus, The Citizen) and the ZA government's website (not from a grapewine).
 * There is no gossiping (gossiping = Talk socially without exchanging too much information, A conversation that spreads personal information about other people (dictionary= wordweb)).
 * The article is about an incident that happened at a school. Of course people were involved. Although no names are mentioned these people (12 x matrics, 14 x grade 11s, headmaster, Druce Hall teacher and deputy head master) were involved in the incident. The police did issue warrants of arrest. There was a court case. There was an initiation ceremony. People were assaulted.
 * 2 February 2009 happened at PBHS. Remove / reduce / scale back as much as you want. It happened.

Instead of deleting, fix it.Alex Xand (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Alex Xand - Firstly, I am biased. I both attended and taught at the school when the incident happened. Yes it did happen. But to add a little perspective:


 * 1. The vast majority of the reporting was done by one reporter and one newspaper (Angelique Serrao at The Star). Although I am probably biased, reporting was extremely one-sided and was fed by one source (Pene Kimber, the mother of the boy). No boys who were involved were interviewed and the headmaster's comments were misreported.


 * 2. It was never reported that the school followed the Dept of Education's own policies and procedures in dealing with the matter. Those procedures take time, and Ms Kimber was obviously not interested in this happening, which is why she went to the press.


 * 3. The school, as stated above, followed all procedures. Following the incident the entire school participated in a Boys2Men project, the school initiated a project to outline and inculcate the values of the school, and the governing body went through similar training. None of this was reported and consequently isn't available as a source.


 * 4. Incidents like that happen at EVERY school, be they traditional boys' schools, or co-ed schools. There are always stories of frustrated teenagers who have been hit, bullied, and injured at school. It shouldn't happen and nobody should condone it, but it happens. Educators are physically not able to watch 1000 kids at all times. There aren't wikipedia articles about every initiation/bullying/drug etc incident at every school in the world, so why should there be one about this?


 * To answer your other questions:


 * 1. Old and new pots are matrics and Form Ones. The tradition started in the 70s I think, and comes from Selbourne in the Eastern Cape. It is aimed at providing a mentor in a boy's first weeks at the school.


 * 2. PT, games and sports are usually fun for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpythegimpy (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Respected School
Respected by which standards?