Talk:Reddam House

Australia: New South Wales / Sydney Low‑importance

	Australia portal Reddam House is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

South Africa Low‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

There are a number of structural and political changes taking place at Reddam House at the moment.

It appears to me that this Wikipedia entry is repeatedly becoming the subject of vandalism.

Some attention needs to be paid to the veracity of revisions to the article.

I have attempted to rewrite some of the last few versions, in order to maintain a NEUTRAL point of view.

I know that some Reddam studnents are VERY angry at the fact that Kim Tsoklakis got the heave ho - but if you want to do right by the fella, put some of his achievements down here, and pay tribute to him by recognising his accomplishments, rather than vandalising Wikipedia like an infant having a tantrum.

If the facts are all documented here in a neutral point of view, then no spin doctoring by any school director can take them away ;)

TO ALL ADMINS DOING REVERSIONS: Be careful!!! The last revert returned this article to a former vandalised State (eg the School motto was turned back into "We shall give back door" instead of "We Shall Give Back" etc!!!! ( Aurelius One )

I'd invite anyone who wants to fix this entry to discuss it hear and come up with a neutral POV article that presents both views. It is not as one-sided as the vandals suggest.

Some of you may also like to fill out some more information on the school. ZiggysOnline ZiggysOnline 05:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion, based on the verifiable facts according to the source provided:

“

In late October 2006, it was announced that the Head of the Senior School, Kim Tsolakis was to leave the school. This announcement was followed by protests by some students, including signage in front of the school. Although no specific reason was provided for the departure, the November 1st edition of the Wentworth Courier contained a report <ref>[http://www.hotsheepsex.co.nz/reddam.JPG Wentworth Courier - Students on Strike]</ref> citing the health of Kim Tsolakis as the reason for the departure, explaining that the decision was meant to be kept private until the end of the year. On the same day as the article was published, it became clear that Kim Tsolakis would not remain in his position until the conclusion of the school year, but that he would hand over his position on the same day.

”

My question is, how are we to know this actually comes from the Wentworth Courier? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an underwhelming response here I will put it in the article for others to edit. It's not exactly flowing prose but it's an improvement. I don't really think it warrants any comment at all, but such is the nature of articles here - at least it should be NPOV and verifiable until it no longer seems important. I just want to make one thing clear, based on the source used to verify this - there is no indication that the teacher was sacked or asked to resign. There is no indication that the teacher didn't leave completely of his own accord. Anything to the contrary will need to be supported by a reliable source. Otherwise, please edit my prose. I will leave the {{disputed}} tag in the section for someone else to remove. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but the wentworth courier article is complete rubbish and cannot be a reliable source. Obviously the information that was entered before was reliable as it was first hand from a student at the school. I know it must be hard when you are trying to create a neutral point of view but for a situation like the one at this school, sometimes a source of students is more important and more accurate than media. Keepmrt 11:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately first hand editors' understanding of the situation doesn't fit with reliable sources either - more importantly they are completely unverifiable. We should just remove this section then. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the first hand editors understanding of the situation doesn't fit with reliable sources? It is first hand from a reddam student so therefore second hand information such as from wentworth courier articles should not be relevant at all.Keepmrt 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on verifiability explains it. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well based on the verifiability policy, the whole article should not exist as it is all taken from the Reddam House website which is certainly not a reliable source (merely existing for marketing purposes). However the article should exist, so eventually some unreliable sources have to be trusted which includes first hand opinions by people actually there. Keepmrt 06:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can a fact be included in Wikipedia that does not have a source? *shrugs* I know some of the facts surrounding the dismissal of Kim Tsoklakis with ABSOLUTE factual certainty. If I publish those on my own website, do they then become reliably sourced? I don't think so... Needs must I become a recognised historian to document the history of the school in a manner that can be accepted as a reliable source? How does recorded history in any instance go from the hearsay of those involved to becoming established fact???Meh - I don't know the answer, and I'm not actually affiliated with the school as such, so I'm not really concerned enough to pursue the matter. HOWEVER I do care about Wikipedia and NPOV, and I still want Wikipedia to be as factually accurate and complete as possible, this article included. - Aurelius One

Fair use rationale for Image:Reddam 13.jpg[edit]

Image:Reddam 13.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]