Talk:Hurlstone Agricultural High School/Archive 1

I have removed contentious words and replaced them with verifiable information. There should be no reason for the NPOV dispute to continue. User: dlatimer 03 Feb 2003

I think this article is probably best being completely re-written Barneyboo 11:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Hurlstone Agricultural High school is relatively prestigious. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

after all my copy paste. no way. tranbo 07:13, 25 jun 2007 (UTC)

Co-curricular activities section

The co-curricular activities section occupies a great deal of space at the beginning of this article. It is at the very least aesthetically displeasing to occupy the foremost space in an article with a point by point list. Furthermore the section is entirely uninformative and unnecessary. My personal belief is that the section be removed from the article.

The use of the wor 'co-curricular' to describe the activities and groups is erroneous. As the respective Wikipedia article says, "Extracurricular activities should not be confused with co-curricular activities such as band and choir. Co-curricular activities do have some aspects that are outside the normal school day but are mainly curricular activities that happen during normal class time." A number of the activities in the list are not co-curricular at all, for example 'Cadets', 'Musicals', 'Cattle Showing Group' and 'Music ensembles'. I feel that 'co-curricular' has been used as a buzzword, in a poor attempt at implying that the listed activities are more closely tied with the curriculum than they indeed are.

In addition, why is 'Peer Support' described as an activity, rather than a service?

I strongly believe that most of these activites need not have a place in the article at all. Why does the reader need to know that Hurlstone has a 'Year 11 Drama Production', for example? Many of the activities are those which would be available at any school. It should be made clear to the reader which activities are those unique to Hurlstone. This is the only reason that such activities need to be listed. This is supposed to be an objective and informative article, not a promotion for the school. It need not contain a list of extra or co-curricular activities. If someone is interested in finding out what activities, clubs or groups can be engaged with at the school, they can approach the school's website.

The section has been poorly written, and it wouldn't be far off the mark to suggest that a teacher or student with certain motives in mind has created the list. Why, for example, does the list contain both 'Sports' (incredibly general for what is supposed to be a list of fairly specific activities) and 'School Knockout Sports Teams'? Why isn't there a section about Hurlstone sports, as opposed to one word and one phrase include within a spurious and half-baked 'list'?

Indeed a list has no place within an article like this. A list simply occupies space that well-written content could otherwise take up. It detracts from the quality of the article, and detracts the readers attention from the other, more thoroughly researched, well-presented and informative sections. A reader does not need to know that Hurlstone offers students a 'Hurlstone Christian Fellowship'.

Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Writers and contributors don't plagiarise press releases. An encyclopaedia has no place incorporating this sort of material. Dodgy public relations efforts are not conduicive to objective knowledge. To those students and/or teachers reading (and presumably editing): please prioritise the quality of the article when reading. Remember, in the context of an encyclopaedia, promotion of the school has no place. Nor does unverifiable and aesthetically displeasing text.

The list has no place, offers very little information, and is clearly a very poor effort at free publicity.

However, in the interest of keeping both Wikipedia and this article as places where quality and factual information is offered, I have rewritten the section, and placed it within a more appropriate space.

Again, I implore teachers or students: do not try to turn this article into some promotion for the school. Feeble, visually unimpressive, spurious and uninformative attempts at counter-balancing the bad press the school has (and continues) to receive as documented in the 'Media and Controversies' section, will not be tolerated within Wikipedia.

And let me re-iterate to those people: 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. Where can such a list be verified?

As it is, I will re-write the section rather than removing it completely. This is not in the interest of the school, because Wikipedia has no place for subjective or promotional content.

To all those interested in objectivity, presumably those unaffiliated with the school, feel free to edit my section, or remove it (without replacing the list) in the interest of maintaining an article that informs, rather than attempts manipulate, the reader. Regards. 211.29.188.103 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Removal of unverifiable or inaccurate material

Removed the word 'extensive' as a reference to sporting facilities. This would be subjective, even if he sporting facilities were in fact extensive, but since they are not - and indeed are poorly maintained and no more extensive than any other local schools - the description is false.

Removed references to 'Hume and Edmonson Boys zone Combined High School' as a means of describing sporting events. This is unnecessarily semantic. Any reader unfamiliar with the locality will not know what CHS is, nor will the description of the sporting events enlighten them further since there is no article about CHS. It serves the article better to say that the school's sporting teams are engaged in local and intra-state competitions.

From 'Campus' Section, I removed 'most of the day students travel by train to their homes'. This is unverifiable, unnecessary and subjective. No one has ever taken a poll, nor will they, on the number of day students who attend the school via train, as opposed to via private vehicle or even other means of public transportation. There are no facts to substantiate such a claim, and the claim is inaccurate. Replaced with 'some of the day students'.

Traditions section, removed the 'late try thriller' reference. Unnecessary, informal tone, reference to an event that may or may not have happened, and regardless, has no meaning or impact on anyone outside the school.

Removed the following unverifiable and subjective sentence: 'Hurlstone maintains high academic standards and is consistently listed in the top 25 New South Wales high schools in terms of Higher School Certificate marks. It is one of the oldest and best known selective schools in NSW.'

This is entirely erroneous. I have updated the statement to accord with new information, referenced as per verifiable sources (the DET report and the Herald article in which it is mentioned).

Removed the following unverifiable information: 'Hurlstone was the first public school in NSW to have its own swimming pool.' There are no references to substantiate such a claim. It may or may not be true, but since there are no citations to back the claim up, it has been removed.

Removed unverifiable references to 'English staffroom' and it's proximity to Clarke House. Unnecessary, and again, meaningless to anyone outside of the school.

Removed 'fought in the wars' sentence, poorly written and confusing.

Pro Patria does not mean 'For my Country' - a more accurate translation is 'For Country', 'For Fatherland' or 'For Native Land'. The article has been updated to reflect this.

Removed references to Hurlstone being a 'selective' school. The Department of Education now refers to the school as 'part' or 'partially' selective. I have added this information with citations.

2. Structural changes and additions

In light of new information as per the Herald article of 29 September, I have altered the article's introduction, and added a number of new sections.

Since the media attention which has haunted the school over the past ten years is much more important to the reader than silly descriptions of 'co-curricular activities', I have incorporated references to the scandals in the article's introduction. As it stands, Hurlstone is known as much for the scandals which seem to continously savage the school's reputation, as for anything else, and so therefore reference must be made at the beginning of the article to these scandals and controversies.

I have added three new sections: 'Financial Mismanagement', 'Nepotism' and 'Poor Academic Performance'. I shifted all the information within the 'Media and Controversies' section that could more accurately be placed under the 'Financial Mismanagement' section.

The reasons are as follows: the 'Media and Controversies' section was fast becoming the largest section in the article, and as such was becoming unreadable. Since the scandals plaguing the school have been based in charges of financial mismanagement, nepotism and poor academic results, I have shifted the information to accord with the new headings. This makes the article more easily readable, and puts the appropriate information in appropriate sections. The bullying, intimidation and other scandals have been left in the 'Media and Controversies' section as is again appropriate.

Since new information has come about (again as per the Herald article of September 29), I have incorporated this new information, primarily into the 'Financial Mismanagement' and 'Nepotism' sections. I have also incorporated information about poor academic results into the so-named section.

All new information is appropriately referenced and cited. There are no claims not independently verifiable, and so the article now organised, accords with Wikipedia's policies. There are no point-of-view or neutrality issues, since all the charges levelled at the school have been cited from news sources, which have themselves cited DET reports, and financial committee and other records from the school itself.

Furthermore all quotes are referenced directly to the news articles from which they have been taken.

As it stands the article is functional as part of Wikipedia, and not only does the language fit better with Wikipedia's standards, so do the aesthetics.

There may be minor spelling or grammatical errors which remain to be fixed, but as of this date I cannot see them. 211.29.188.103 03:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User 'HAHSAdmin'

As I suspected (and referred to earlier), there is quite clearly one user (and possibly more) who represents the school, either from a student or staff position. My suspicions are that this person is a staff member, SRC member, or someone otherwise interested in promoting and cultivating a positive image for the school. As all the news articles maintain, one of the hallmarks of Hurlstone staff activity is attempting to cover up negative information (i.e the truth), in order to maintain the school's reputation. This has manifested itself in the past (according to news sources) as bullying, harrassment, intimidation and outright covering up of the truth. Now it appears to manifest as staff or those with appropriate interests to protect, attempting to maintain a positive Wikipedia page.

One indication of this user's motives is that he or she appears to be always filling the article up with entirely useless information, information that has no relevance to anyone outside of the school community, in order to counterbalance all the truthful, accurate and well-sourced information on scandals, and controversies.

For example (taken from HAHSAdmin's edit history):

Adding the following text: 'Hurlstone celebrated its centenary on April 1st 2007. Guests and guest speakers at the ceremony were, in order of first appearance:' and then adding a list of speakers. Since few people know who these speakers are, and few care who spoke at a Hurlstone cenentary dinner on a particular occaission, the edit is entirely useless, and possibly unverifiable. It is now gone, thankfully, because some right minded individual had the sense to remove it. But this sort of thing goes to show exactly what I am talking about.

Furthermore:

References to 'Mr Tom Taylor, The oldest surviving former Hurlstone student at 100 years and 10 months (as of April 1st 2007), accompanied by Alex Manisier and Mary-anne Nguyen, the youngest Hurlstonians.'

Which is more example of this sort of thing. No one cares who accompanied Tom Taylor, possibly beyond those who actually accompanied him. And those two (the youngest Hurlstonians) may not have given permission for their names to be used here - I highly doubt that their appearances are to be considered public domain information, whether they actually happened or not. In any case, despite the very likely unwanted publication of these young student's names, the information is completely irrelevant. Let me reiterate, this article is NOT about documenting every single dinner or swimming carnival that has ever happened at Hurlstone.

The article IS about describing the school, basically how it operates, it's history, the scandals that have plagued it - with perhaps some other information to be incorporated.

The article is NOT intended to be another hurlstone.com.au. It is not a place for Hurlstone staff or students to edit at their whims in order to try and present an image of the school, or preserve the school's reputation, at the expense of the truth.

This article is supposed to be as any other in Wikipedia: a factual and informative article about the school. It does not need to contain ludicrous semantics or such minor current events as the score at the most recent football match (which was referenced and I had to remove).

To user HAHSAdmin (a name which is highly suggestive of a Hurlstone staff member, or at the very least someone interested in maintaining this article according to their own opinions, rather than the FACTS) and any other user interested in this sort of manipulative behaviour, I say this:

When you edit the article, or ANY article, you must consider the reader. The general reader may not be, and most likely will not be a member of the Hurlstone community. Therefore references to football scores or individual Hurlstonians making speeches or escorting people making speeches HAVE NO PLACE. They are meaningless and serve only to clutter the article. Again, this is NOT another website for Hurlstone.

Attempts at protecting the school's reputation by misinformation here, as perpetrated by Hurlstone staff members or students with obvious motive

I'll say it again if I haven't said it enough, which I don't suppose I have, considering the mindset of some of these people: DO NOT attempt to use Wikipedia to cover up the information that is now coming to light. Do NOT attempt to promote the school's reputation or image at the expense of the facts and the truth. This is an article for the truth and the truth only. Every claim must be referenced, every assertion based in fact. The facts that are coming out thanks to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, and news.com.au are thoroughly grevious, but nonetheless they are facts. The truth cannot be covered up. If you want to try and use a webpage as a petty promotional tool for Hurlstone, if you want to use a webpage to hide the scandals and controversies and sweep the media attention under the rug, use the Hurlstone webpage, not this one.

Because any attempts to cover up the truth, I will, in contact with Wikipedia administration, make sure are unsuccessful.

To all those who may think I sound conspiratorial or overtly concerned with Hurlstone staff and students covering up information, I say, read the news articles that have come out and are coming out. The sad fact is, Hurlstone has thrived on it's reputation in the past, and staff and some students are willing to go to extremes in order to cover up the true nature and workings of the school environment. The Herald and other first rate news organisations have done well to peel this layer of lies away. Hurlstone staff and some students will have no qualms about attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, in order to present their school as something it is not, and therefore encourage parents to send their children to this place, and thus profit from fees and grants afforded to the school as a result of enrollment. The students engaging in this kind of behaviour will do so out of a sense of 'school spirit' or pride, or else at the behest of the staff. The staff do so for the reasons mentioned. It is not aggrandizement or exaggerative to believe that they will try and do so here. The fact is, they have. I implore all honest readers to be wary of this scurrilous activity here on Wikipedia.

And I implore all Hurlstone staff and students willing to engage in this sort of thing, to not attempt it. Any misinformation will be forwarded to Wikipedia administration, or else edited by honest people. Furthermore, any blatant attempts at the spread of misinformation will be forwarded to journalists investigating the school currently.

And there a number of journalists currently investigating the school, even beyond those organisations already listed (the Herald, Telegraph, Age et al.) They will, and in fact are quite interested in exposing any behaviour that could be construed as misleading by Hurlstone staff.

If any attempts at promoting misleading material are discovered by journalists, I imagine that they will then instantly be used at pitch meetings as source material for stories, and they will be accepted by editors. The education copydesk at a number of organisations are very keen to further expose corrupt practices at Hurlstone. It is only a lose-lose situation for those intending to spread misinformation about the school, and I would implore you not to do so if you are considering it.211.29.188.103 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: 211.29.188.103's Edit

I think the page needs a restructure/rewrite. Not to say the information shouldn't be included. I agree, it is important that all information remains on the page. But a restructure, at the very least, is needed, and not every detail from those articles needs to be included. At the very least, this should be submitted to WikiProject Schools for their opinion. I'm happy to coordinate it with you, but my aim is to make the article a Featured Article candidate, and I don't think it's there yet.

Thankyou, though, for taking the time to edit the page. It did need redoing, although I'm not sure if your way is how I would have done it. I won't make any changes without discussing it here first - I'm not trying to cover anything up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.14.88 (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To all fellow editors

I believe that the current article and the one before the major edit(s) both have their faults. The old article indeed did have too large a list of 'co-curricular activities', the new article tends to convey a negative image which may or may not be true. I could go on. No article can ever be NPOV unless every tiny detail is covered, which realistically would make an extremely boring read. To make sure this article is as close as possible to a NPOV, we need to address just how much we should focus on both the positives and the negatives of the subject matter. However, I do not believe that the authors and editors of this article have underlying motives.

Of opinion and fact

There is a very fine line between opinion and fact. Newspapers can be cited as fact but there seems to be too much opinion of the press that has been mirrored in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampedson (talk • contribs) 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of users who are vandalising this site. They are so deperate in life that they hang on wikipedia to harass the students of the school by providing unwarrented and unverified content.

This site has undergone many revisions with serious ones in November. But those users just cannot help themselves and will spend their time and life as cyber vandals.

With this sort of practice, Wikipedia will soon become a non trusted and veritfied source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.22.103 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the purpose is=

There seems to be a couple of semantic arguments going on regarding this article....

The first centres around the 'selective' vs 'partially' selective nature of the school. With NPOV I sought information from the official NSW Department of Education website. http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/schoolfind/types/selectiveschools.php It describes Hurlstone as an agricultural high school and further describes agricultural high schools as 'selective high schools which emphasise the study of agriculture', with the residential sections giving some priority to isolated students' (see above weblink).

NOTE James Ruse high is cited in the SAME category by the Department of education and the wiki article on that school cites it's status as 'an agricultural and selective co-educational public high school'. It appears this classification is made without any controversy.

The citation used to justify calling the school partially selective is a 'quote' from one 2004 newspaper article.

I have modified the article to include language on the school's status in line with the James Ruse article as it appears in Wiki. I'd welcome advice as to what others think. MB