Talk:Regent High School

Rewrite Feb 2007

I have attempted to pull this article together into a better shape and would welcome constructive comments. Some sections (e.g. history) are new; others sections are reworded / combined (e.g. the profile of the school, with proper references to the last OFSTED report and latest GCSE results); other sections have been removed (e.g. the section on "Behaviour for learning" / BFL. My view, for what it's worth, is that BFL is not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Students at the school who want to re-edit this article are, of course, free to do so, but please think before just undoing what I've written. Contributors should remember the Wikipedia policies on maintaining a "neutral point of view" WP:POV and providing references to published / verifiable sources WP:CITE. (NB Saying "I'm there and I know what it's like" does not count for WP:CITE purposes!) If you're unsure, please discuss things here first. Bencherlite 00:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work by Bencherite - looks better Victuallers 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sup :)

I would like to take back what i said about the school council, there are some really smart kids there, and some of them are making a difference. I was a little angry at the school when I wrote that. But i still stand by my point that there is no where enough student input in the school.

Anti - Social Chav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.25.214 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:SCCS.jpg

Image:SCCS.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 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 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Sir William Collins New Buildings 1961-10-20.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sir William Collins New Buildings 1961-10-20.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

2013 edits

A significant improvement by Edwardx. I am still concerned that so many references just quote the school's publications - this sort of thing is worthless junk and it might as well just point to a single reference to the school's website.Cj1340 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Work is still needed. We always need to be vigilant to avoid these school articles being turned into promotional advertorial. Edwardx (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Stucture

Have deleted the section headed structure because it didn't contain any information at all on how the school is structured. While it did contain information on a vertical tutoring initiative, for which the only source is the school website, it cannot be said that this defines how the school in structured. In fact, vertical tutoring appears to work outside of the usual structure.

Information on progress review days and Ofsted's views on student participation are clearly not relevant here.

The Wikipedia article should not simply contain information cut and pasted from the school website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephennewton (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

History and when did it become co-educational?

I went to Sir William Collins from 1980. It was definitely a mixed school then and I didn't know it had once been a boys' school. But is there a reliable source that states it was once a boys' school? In general the history section of this page is sparse, very poorly sourced and so unreliable.Stephen Newton (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I went to the school in the 1960s and believe me there were no girls - it must have switch to co-ed in the 1970s if you were there in the 1980s. The evidence will be in the Inner London Education Archives but as I don't live in London I don't have the opportunity to see them. The information given about the history up to the 1960s is pretty accurate so far as I know - it's no use being critical about it - do something about it! Cj1340 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a little silly to suggest you should only point out weaknesses you are able to fix yourself. Wikipedia editors contribute as much or as little as they feel able and motivated to do and that's how it should be. There's no harm in opening up a discussion on how any particular page can be improved. I respect your assertion that the history up to the 1960s is accurate, but it still doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards as is. It appears to rely on contributors' fading memories. Stephen Newton (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone flesh out the "negative perception" point?

The article claims that

"The name was last changed in an attempt to shed what staff feared was a "negative perception" of the school rooted in its past."

but doesn't flesh out what the (real or perceived) bad stuff from the school's past was that led to this negative perception. The cited source is similarly coy.

I would guess that this is about the history of racial tensions (and racial violence?) between whites and Bengalis at the school, discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Everitt, but I'm not actually sure that's what being alluded to.

Ideally, the article would be specific about what "negative perception" the school was trying to escape from. But I guess there might simply be no sources that spell this out. Failing that, it'd be good to at least mention some historical negatives about the school in the History section. The history of ethnic conflict within the school (mentioned with citations in the Murder of Richard Everitt wiki article) seems surely worth mentioning. Everitt's murder itself (and the subsequent racial violence it triggered in the local community) might be worth mentioning, though I don't know to what extent the school can be argued to bear any blame for any of that. And finally, since we're citing and quoting from Ofsted reports anyway, we can check if there are older Ofted reports saying the school sucked and cite them in the History section. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)