Talk:River Valley High School, Singapore

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RVcrest.gif

Image:RVcrest.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable alumni

I have TWICE removed vandalism removing Wendy Cheng from the list of notable alumni. here and here. Please do not remove this line anymore. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylife2702 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving Wendy Cheng aside for the time being, I will be removing the entire list of notable alumni as it does not measure up to wikipedia standards. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notable_alumni). Many of the "notable alumni" in that list clearly are not notable enough to have a wikilink, either red or blue. Feel free to reinstate the list of notable alumni only, but this should be done only after the list is cleaned up. People who clearly should not be in the list include 'Tan Sheau Yun', 'Choo Wee Khiang', 'Chang Hwee Nee' to pick a random three. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29) for clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.172.135 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Locations Section with History Section

Hi all, I have moved the locations section of the article here as it seems to create a wrong perception that the school have multiple campus, while it described the location history of the campus. This should be under the history section (which had already included similar info in brief). It will help if this can be copy edited into the relevant parts of history section with citations added (there is still not citations included for this part yet). Thanks!! :) Lyg 2001 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Seng Poh Primary School

The government set up its first Chinese school, Singapore Government Chinese Middle School (now known as River Valley High School), on the premises of Seng Poh Primary School.

Strathmore Avenue

At Strathmore Avenue, the school was renamed Queenstown Government Chinese Middle School (now known as River Valley High School). Jalan Kuala. In 1958, it was relocated to Jalan Kuala and renamed River Valley Government Chinese Middle School.

West Coast Road

The school was housed at along 698 West Coast Road from 1986 to 2004 at the current site of Commonwealth Secondary School. The campus was taken over from a previous junior college, after an extension to the facilities by an auditorium, a special function rooms block and a new classroom block. The auditorium was able to house over 2000 students at any one time and was the centrepiece of events held within the school. A smaller multi-purpose hall on top of the canteen supplemented the multi-purpose hall as another gathering location for the students. The school garden is in the heart of the school, and is an integral part of the aesthetics of the school. The school directly faced the Pandan Reservoir, the running track around the perimeter of the reservoir offered an ideal location for the school to hold its runs and Physical Education sessions. It had 3 basketball courts and a football field complete with a gymnasium. The School building was selected for upgrading under the Ministry of Education's PRIME program in 2004.

Queensway

When the campus at West Coast road was selected for PRIME in 2004, the school shifted its location to a temporary holding school in Queensway. It operated at the location from 2005 to the middle of 2006. In the middle of 2006, the school announced its RVIP programme and was allocated a brand new building in Boon Lay for that purpose. The school then shifted its location again to the former Saint Andrew's Junior College campus at Malan Road so that it is able to accommodate a larger student population, with its first batch of Year 5 students in 2009, until the new building in Boon Lay is completed.

Malan Road

The school was situated in a holding site at the former Saint Andrew's Junior College campus at Malan Road. It was situated there for a few years until the construction of their permanent compound in Boon Lay was completed.

Boon Lay

The school relocated to a new modern campus situated in Boon Lay in 2010. The campus was built in a span of 5 years, at the cost of $79 million. The Boon Lay compound is large enough to house six cohorts of students due to the RVIP Programme. The groundbreaking ceremony for the new campus took place on 16 January 2008 and there was a RV big walk to celebrate the opening of the new campus on 2 January 2010. It was officially opened on 15 January 2011, in conjunction with the School's 55th Anniversary Celebrations. The campus bears a distinctive architecture and modular layout, with staff facilities, learning courtyards, track & stadium, sports & physical training halls, science research laboratories, student leisure enclaves & co-curricular activity centres.

2021 killing in the 4th floor boy's toilets

There's more references than these. It is being reported in Singapore, USA, Malaysia, Hong Kong, UK and others. Some editors don't want this info but I looked at other articles in Wikipedia, like Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and Columbine and they have the murder info. Charliestalnaker (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Charliestalnaker: see WP:NOTNEWS Other than that the incident happening in the school, it has nothing on how the school has been treating the students involved so far. Star Malaysia source is a republishing of Straits Times reporting. While reuters is a press agency. The rest of sources cited are of Singapore sources. This has been mostly a local level news. – robertsky (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is about how the school as been treating students but there is info in the Wikipedia article. Also, the current edit DOES mention how the students were treated. They were sent home early. Also Reuters is not a Singaporean source. Neither is Yahoo news. I am not in Singapore nor am I really interested in the country and I read about it. Charliestalnaker (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

but that section is a summary of the main article Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. – robertsky (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The BBC is not Singaporean. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57897762 Charliestalnaker (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also this is a one off, one victim event, which in the wider wikipedia level, not really a notable incident. The pages you cited, the shooting are of multiple victims and have other information like criticism on local law enforcement etc. Unless there are further discourse from this, this is treated as a news item for now. – robertsky (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not news. BBC reports: Extreme violence in schools is rare in Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

The incident saw the prestigious River Valley High School briefly go into lockdown. Students who were kept in classrooms sent panicked messages to their friends and parents, with some saying they had seen a person wielding an axe, according to news reports.<contradicting Robertsky's "it has nothing on how the school has been treating the students involved so far.">

They were eventually released after the accused was arrested. <end of BBC quote>

I know that some editors do not like negative information in schools but Wikipedia cannot be a public relations office for other entities.

Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives further guidance. Bramalea Secondary School, describes shooting of one person. W. R. Myers High School also describes killing of one student. There are many more. Therefore, refusing to leave it in the article is unjustified. Furthermore, as this is so unusual for Singapore, it will be in the news a lot but even as it stands now, is notable enough for inclusion now. Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Already the two ministers, the equivalent of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education (both US terms), made comments, which is highly unusual for a national government to comment on a shooting of one person (not a mass murder). This is further evidence of notability and we're not even talking about a separate article, just a very brief section of an article. Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Negligence as a criteria for inclusion in article?

I suggest an establishment of a separate article on wikipedia. My stance is that there is nothing about the school been negligent in their education of the students that resulted in this incident, or there have been any other factor relating to school being the reason for the committing of the crime, thus it should not be on this page unless there are further discourse. – robertsky (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You may write that separate article. Look at Bramalea Secondary School, W. R. Myers High School. These mention the killing of one person, not 50 people dead. The reason you give is your own reason, not Wikipedia policy. Also "unless there are further discourse" is just your opinion, not Wikipedia policy. Look, mention of this is fairly short in relation to the article length.

No where in Wikipedia does it say that negligence is a requirement to include school shootings in an article, otherwise it cannot be in school articles! Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not label the attack as a murder as the student has not been found guilty of the charge yet. At present, he remains innocent until convicted of the charges. Per WP:DUE, I agree an entire section on the page is not justified until a more detailed history of the school is written, and even then it merits only a single sentence until more facts are out on how it will affect society and any tightening of regulations. I support the establishment of a separate page if the international media has picked up on it, but have not verified if they are just serializing the report. What other pages write have nothing to do with what this page should include, as due weight varies in accordance with the length of an article and its contents. Seloloving (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have changed the title of this section to killing. Alleged murder is also accurate. Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I am still opposing the inclusion of an entire section. We are not the news media and can wait a few weeks to derive the effects of the incident on Singaporean society. Seloloving (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your examples are not relevant. 2 mass shootings which one pushes a law change and the other is inherently wp:notnews. Also your argument is based on Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

There is no rush to establish notability and insistence on having this section. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with Charliestalnaker. The assertions I'm seeing from the opposing camp stem from a misapplication of NOTNEWS, among other things. This is obviously not just a run-of-the-mill Monday story and the current state of sources already warrants the creation of a separate standalone article on the incident. Please do not edit war on either this page or River Valley High School attack. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My revert stems mainly from the sensational style by Charliestalnaker on describing panicky kids and a lockdown, which is really not relevant to the overall history of the school. I support the establishment of a separate article and still stand that a single sentence here is the most that is justified, with an update on any follow up measures and effects on society. Per Columbine High School, it does not goes into details on the events of that day, but simply labels the attack and its subsequent effects. Whether the attack will have any lasting repercussions remains to be seen until the investigation is completed. WP:NOTNEWS is justified in that the Charliestalnaker's addition was written in a news style, but not for the complete revert of the contents. I am still figuring out how to include it in the article properly. Seloloving (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly I had not caught up with Charlie's or anybody else's edits on this article, so perhaps "fully agree" is a stretch but yes Selo I also agree with the sentiment that a sentence here max should suffice with more info on the standalone River Valley High School attack article. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Award

@Charliestalnaker: Hello, I am very curious on your insistence on adding the "mental health award" without any explanation. Why would this award specifically, out of the dozens the school has gotten, merit any attention and deserve its own section? How is this one award relevant to the overall history of the school and has the school gaining this award significantly influenced any notable policies? At the present, your readding of the section is simply a reply to my edit summaries.

If you are trying to link the recent tragedy and create a juxtaposition with the irony of the award, that's bordering on WP:UNDUE weight, considering only a single source has attempted to link the issue. Even if it's notable, it should be on the attack page and not here, as the award is still irrelevant to the school among the thousands the Ministry gives out a year. I still consider it entirely irrelevant and do not think it should be displayed on either pages with such prominence, but will be happy to discuss the dispute. Seloloving (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The award is relevant. On a Google search, it is the most prominent. Some might say that not putting it is an attempt to hide it or the attack. In fact, the attack is very hidden in the article even though it is the most well known event of the school.

Thank you for alerting me that the school as received other awards. This should be part of the article, depending on the award. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. You have not highlighted other awards that you claim are relevant and are still reinstating the same section. You claim to want to add other awards, but so far have only readded the award given at the same time in 2020. What about awards from distant years past going back to 1979? This is bordering on WP:UNDUE weight by giving prominence to a single award via an entire section and naming it after the award.

You are also reinstating the section in the "Academic information" section. What has this got to do with academic information? Has the award spurred any new initiatives in education?

A simple Google Search of "Silver Ribbon Mental Health Award" also brings up 12 companies which recently received it in 2021. Could you please provide evidence on its notability to the school history and how it has affected any policies? A simple Google search likewise brings out a single result relating to the school exclusively.

Your comment on "some might say that not putting it is an attempt to hide it or the attack" is concerning as we are not here to censor or propagate an agenda. The attack being well known is due to WP:RECENTISM. If the attack spurs huge changes in education and policies, yes, I would agree to a larger section. But as of now, it has not and we have yet to see any lasting effects. Seloloving (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The award was issued the first time in 2020, notability and significance is not established. Your edit summary indicated discussed but I do not see any discussion has taken place. Please read WP:BRD. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)