Talk:Great Yarmouth Charter Academy

Fair use rationale for Image:GYHSCrest.JPG

Image:GYHSCrest.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 03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Gibbon incident

This article is about the school, not about Oscar Gibbon. In that context it is hard to see how an incident involving a trainee teacher being removed from the school and subsequently suspended, at a time when the entire school was in special measures, can justify more than a single sentence, and even that is questionable. The secondary sourcing privided comes down to a single article from the local press in 2017 (being published on two different websites does not make it two dfferent atrticles) and there is no evidece this has had any lasting impact on the school. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the school, in particular the failure in the school's safeguarding, something that has been a worry to the local community for some time. The first source was directly from a governmental body. The prohibition order and conclusion was inside the PDF document provided. Furthermore, the behavior doesn't make it less justifiable because the teacher in question is a trainee; this information is spread around the community and was placed on the Wikipedia to prevent misinformation spreading. It's meant to be a direct contrast to the school's administration today. As for the special measures, the school was yet to still transfer to an academy, as this was before the announcement of its new proprietor. 2.99.172.122 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Clarification purposes - Eton College controversies is linked to the main Eton College article, would a separate article dedicated to the controversies allowed, if so would I be able to do that?! 2.99.172.122 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia:Criticism you will see that Controversy sections are generally discouraged, though including controversies incorporated into the main text in the appropriate place and with WP:DUE weight is fine. The Eton College controversies page has multiple topics and 37 separate sources. For your sources the government document is a WP:PRIMARY source and so doens't establist notability, so you are left with a single secondary source from the local press. Since the senior management at the school has changed several times sisnce this incident it's hard to justify more than a single sentence about it, if that. Spinning off a separate article which would in practice be primarily about a single individual falls foul of WP:BLP1E. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new article would not be a single individual as I was planning on adding more controversies especially after the purchase by the school's proprietors, for example. This would be an increasing list after notable scandals, I think the information about the incidents in its previous administrations just like its current ones have issues that should be available to the general public for their review, especially in an objective stance; even when I was only able to place the Oscar Gibbon incident before it being removed. 2.99.172.122 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Barry Smith stuff is, once again, grounds for a single sentence at the appropriate point in the school's history. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the matter at WP:BLP/N and the reply there [1] was "Yes, that's completely UNDUE and should stay out. There are hundreds of teachers on the DBS's Section 142 list and how they got there is not encyclopedic, especially in the articles of the schools they happened to work at when the offence took place." So no, it doesn't belong here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this conversation i'd like to bring up another Norfolk based schools page with a similar controversy page that was attempted to be implemented here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_High_School,_Norwich 2A02:C7F:5002:6A00:94B2:C1F6:A6B7:AB68 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has been handled by Black Kite, but I have added the page to my watchlist. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]