Talk:Trinity Grammar School (New South Wales)

assess
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)

Controversy
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 think it should stay but perhaps be shortened to one or two sentences. It is still important but not important enough to merit its own section. GizzaChat  &#169; 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still relevant because 2000 was not very long ago for this sort of thing, and it was only in 2005 that the matter was financially settled and a film made about it. Furthermore, even if the whole thing had happened ten years earlier in 1990, the matter is extraordinary because this sort of thing used to be common in the 1950s and this is the only school where it has happened in the modern era.  People care about the issue.  Does it deserve its own section?  You bet.  It's a bad idea to try to cram all this stuff in the introductory section.  The introductory section should only have a really short reference to it.  The anonymous IP address users who keep removing the section should rethink their attitude.  The school is still trying to reduce the problem today and having high public awareness about the problem will help the school to reduce the problem.  Cultural problems like this can take a generation to fix.  Vigilance is the solution. Tmrussell 03:51, 27 May 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)


 * For starters, the count of criminal charges presented against Neal Winters numbered in excess of a hundred counts (though I'm not sure on how many he was actually convicted on, and that may be the discrepency), nevertheless, he's gone down in history as Australia's most prolific convicted pedophile, that on it's own may not merit relevance to the article, but furthermore, I can assure you that Winters was employed by the school as late as 2002, not 1992. I don't know where 1992 has come from, but it is simply not true. That may have been the beginning of his employment at the school, but it was certainly not the end of his tenure. And no, it wasn't I who created the paragraph in the first place, but I still noticed it's omission.

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)


 * I agree that the Neal Winters thing is probably unnecessary. I did not create the paragraph on Neal Winters.  Whoever did create that paragraph should explain why it should remain, and if a valid explanation is not given, we should remove it in 3 weeks from now.  As for the issue of whether it deserves a full section.  Absolutely it deserves its own section.  It would be silly to try to cram all that information into the introduction.  The whole point of the introductory section is that it is supposed to be really short and succinct, and should only have one short sentence about it.  The dedicated section is the correct place to put it.  "Trinity is not the only school with bullying problems."  That is a fairly weak argument.  We all thought that buggery went out with the English private schools of the 19th Century.  Well here we have an Australian school in the 21st century with some kid being anally penetrated not once but hundreds of times.  There is no other school in Australia where anything of that magnitude has happened for an extremely long time.  As the person who originally put the bullying info into wikipedia, I stand by the fact that it is worthy of inclusion.

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)


 * Great then. Yes we have reached a consensus.  I have just removed the Neal Winters section.  Oops, supposed to wait 3 weeks, not one week.  Damn.  Okay I am putting it back for 2 weeks. Got confused when reverting vandalism by 60.225.192.209 who is 80% likely to be a student at Trinity, given vandalism naming a teacher at that school. Tmrussell 08:13, 5 June 2007 (U

April 2008 Changes to Controversies section
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


 * A major concern is that you are copying and pasting large chunks of text, which violates copyright. Please see WP:COPYVIO. As for the substance of the section, there should be some mention of this incident, but the mention cannot be undue. See WP:UNDUE. Recurring dreams (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * Hi there. You may sign and date your posts by simply typing ~ after your entry.

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)


 * The incident is still not notable in the scheme of the whole article about the school - a note about another former teacher was removed from the article for the same reason. If all you can come up with is one reference to a Parliamentary debate, as opposed to the multitude of media coverage which accompanied the other Boarding House incident mentioned in the controversies section, then perhaps it deserves a place. But one single reference (and by Franca Arena no less), does not merit inclusion in this article at this point. JRG (talk) 12:55, 22 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)

Assessment
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)

Hilliard pic
A possibly useful PD photograph of Hilliard: 99of9 (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
OK, deleted replicated text; will paraphrase and repost soon. Z 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed tag. Stickee (talk)  12:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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)
 * In the absence of feedback, the content has been merged from Trinity Grammar School Preparatory School into Trinity Grammar School (New South Wales). Rangasyd (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's good. Sorry I didn't reply earlier - I don't think I received the ping. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)