Talk:Tak Sun Secondary School

Lead
In my view, the lead should not mention the financial irregularities that were clarified afterwards. Otherwise the NPOV policy would be compromised (it is a tiny aspect of the entire School history and operation). According to WP:LEAD, the lead should not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. --Saa703 (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it can be argued either way, it was not a major scandal, but it is the sole one noted and should probably not be glossed over. If you go back through the article's history, you can see that the main concern is that there have been many attempts by admitted COI editors to sanitize this article and turn it into a promotional fluff piece about how great and wonderful this school is. I was originally going to send it for deletion as spam until I discovered that the school is notable for this scandal. Actually without the scandal the school is probably not notable otherwise and would not meet WP:GNG for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your reply. I agree that a Secondary School in Hong Kong probably does not meet the WP:GNG for an article in the Wikipedia. I think that an accounting error of 29.000 HK$ (=3.470 US$) that has been corrected afterwards and that has caused no damage to others is not relevant enough for changing that view. In any case, if the article remains, I think that it should not be focused on the financial error; otherwise, it would not be neutral, as I explained before. In the end, I would support your petition for deletion, as a non encyclopedic article. --Saa703 (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well as I noted, without that scandal the school is "not notable" and the article should probably be deleted. As far as I can tell that is pretty much the only press it has got, at least in English. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * An admin removed the Prod tag and the whole controversy paragraph with the edit summary "all secondary schools are notable". I restored the controversy section as without that the school definitively does not make WP:N. I am curious where the consensus was decided that all "all secondary schools are notable", even if they don't meet WP:GNG. In fact WP:NSCHOOL says "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." This seems to contradict the admin's edit summary. Perhaps this article should be sent to WP:AFD for a complete discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The admin has once again sanitized the article of all controversy with the edit summary, "The article meets WP:N, without it, because all secondary schools are notable. the event is essentially trivial." Sorry but you need to explain how "all secondary schools are notable" when WP:NSCHOOL specifically says that they aren't unless they meet normal requirements for "multiple independent third party refs", which this doesn't have. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a compromise available, what we call Proportionate coverage. Write a single sentence with key references, mentioning the existence of the matter, without giving the name of the offender. The details will be in the references if anyone cares. I suggest trying this here, not on the article, to see if there can be agreement on it. I remind Ahunt that all secondary schools with a real existence are always considered notable, even with less material than here. There is no possibility at all that a stub on it would be deleted for lack of notability at AfD--not a single such article has been deleted in the last 5 years--every such article brought to AfD has been kept, generally by SNOW. "Notability" at WP is what we do here, not what we personally think important.  I have not yet been acting as an admin, but the removal of the name is essential, and I will enforce this under the provisions of WP:BLP as disproportionate.   DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Thanks for joining the discussion here. I have a few questions about what you have written:
 * "the removal of the name is essential, and I will enforce this under the provisions of WP:BLP as disproportionate" - the offender here was the school, so how does BLP apply?
 * "all secondary schools with a real existence are always considered notable" - how does this square with WP:NSCHOOL which indicates that all schools must meet normal notability requirements for organizations, requiring multiple independent references to be retained.
 * If you have gone though the article history you can see that it has mostly been the target of extreme COI spamming most of the time. When I cleaned that up there wasn't much left that could be referenced at all, as very little seems to have been written about this school, at least in English. I was initially going to just send it to CSD as spam, but then discovered that the school is notable, but only for the one spending scandal, otherwise it falls far short of WP:NSCHOOL. If you can clarify the above two questions I am quite willing to have a go at what you suggested, as my original entry on the scandal was very brief. Other editors felt the need to expand it greatly, which can easily be undone. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the “event” is trivial and that focusing on it would be unfair. I have no doubt about the “notability” of the school: see ad. es. List_of_secondary_schools_in_Hong_Kong.--Jucavas (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, allegations of unlawfulness are not considered in order to assess the notability WP:ILLCON. --Jucavas (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out WP:ILLCON, that is a good point! I don't see how being listed in a Wikipedia list such as List of secondary schools in Hong Kong confers notability to meet WP:NSCHOOL. As WP:CIRCULAR says "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources". - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay well I have waited a week for an answer to my questions above, but none has been forthcoming. To move this along, here is what I propose re-inserting into the article:


 * "In November 2010 the school was named as one of 71 direct subsidy schools on the Hong Kong Education Bureau's 2010 List of Shame for billing the government HK$29,000 for a staff dinner. The school admitted its wrongdoing and paid the money back. " - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I’m still thinking that it is not relevant. My proposal is to leave the article without any reference to that “issue”. If you read the dossier []you will find that it was just a small mistake that was corrected afterwards.Jucavas (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While not major I think it would be a whitewash to omit it entirely. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the remarks on lack of "notability" are now withdrawn. In any case, the article should not be focused on a non-major corrected mistake. I think this is the substance of WP:ILLCON, because otherways the WP:NPOV principle would be compromised. Saa703 (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that is exactly why we seem to have agreed to include just a very short mention of the event and nothing more. That was what I originally put into the article, until other editors expanded it and what I have proposed to put back in again, as I noted above.


 * As far as notability of the school goes, we haven't addressed that. User:DGG has said that all schools are automatically notable but hasn't explained why he or she thinks that after several requests for clarification. On the other hand I have pointed out that this school doesn't make the inclusion criteria WP:NSCHOOL, which says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This school does not meet that criteria. Unless someone can explain to me how this school actually makes the criteria then I think the article should go to WP:AFD for a full debate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there is no need to mention the financial irregularities at all. As indicated above, it was not a major scandal. In fact, if you review the WP pages for other schools listed in the HK Standard "School Role of Shame" article (for example St. Paul's Co-educational College, Ying Wa College, and  Li Po Chun United World College), you will find there is no mention made of their mistakes.  If this were a major issue, worthwhile noting, then it would have been included on the pages of the other schools as well.  It does not make sense to single out Tak Sun Secondary School on this. -Pmoss13 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, there does not seem to be a consensus to include the scandal information in the article. Furthermore, as noted above, User:DGG doesn't think it will be deleted at WP:AFD, so that leaves, as an alternative, carefully editing the article to remove the last of the spamminess that the original COI editor who started it left, tag as needed and leave it as is, all of which I have done. Let's see if it gets spammed again or not in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What should I do?
I was a old student,there and I have the school handbook,my question is what should I write about? The only second (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)