Talk:The King's (The Cathedral) School

Main content

The main information on this page is copied directly from the school's website. Dunno if this is really a problem, as it doesn't seem too biased... Odd bloke 17:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to be more an advertisement for the school than a factual record. I'm not sure that some of the content is appropriate in an encylopedic entry. Comments? graydj 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Public School ?

Is this school an independent school or a state comp ? The article is confusing, and their website unclear.--jrleighton 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a state comp, with an independant attitude. It does have a selection policy however.

How can a school claim to be a comprehensive with a selection policy? Also how can the school claim to be cristian with its elightest attitude the bible promotes helping the poor and group responsibility your school however apears to promote the midle classes and elightism?

I don't believe that the above person has the article's interests at heart - I believe he or she is aiming simply to deride and generally put the school down. I could find no evidence to suggest that the school promote's "middle class" learning - there is a wide range of pupils at the school, from children with rich parents to children who qualify for the full Education Maintenance Allowance. I have included a reference to the perception of snobbery in King's students, however, and I have removed the badly written paragraph on paedophiles temporarily, which I will replace with a better written example. John Coxon 11:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The perception of snobbery is just that - a perception. Unless there is some verification, the statement shouldn't be there at all. Likewise, the alleged paedophilia should not make an appearance in the article without a reference. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. ... discospinster 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I go to the school, so I know that there is snobbery within it. I can't think of any more worthwhile reference, if I'm totally honest. Both of the paedophiles admitted to their crimes - "Link broken" and this article on the guy who had sex with his son's girlfriend. Will those do for references? John Coxon 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Links for article relating to T Coldwell changed to one that works.

Cleanup

I'm just going to go ahead and do a cleanup on this whole article. I don't really know anything about it, so others are going to have to fill in the gaps. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there's not really enough information for an infobox, so I'll just do some wikification. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information?

I am unsure as to why the information detailing the scandals concerning Coldwell and Lister was removed - there was no mention made on this page, and no reason given in the edit itself, so I have reinstated the information. It is been cited and is factual, so I see no reason why it should be removed - if anybody editing this article should wish to remove it, please comment here so that it can be discussed instead of just deleting it. Thanks! John Coxon 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the school wish to have a continual reminder of its 'scandals' John? Probably not. The information on Coldwell and Lister is readily available on other news sites. This page should be about the Kings School and its successes.

That is not the point of an encyclopedia - an encyclopedia entry should be as unbiased as possible and include any factual information that can be found about the school. This includes the section on the 'scandals', as you (whoever you are) so put it. This is not a site for advertisements, and this part of the entry should not be removed for the purpose of painting King's in a better light, as this makes a mockery of the goal of Wikipedia - providing good and unbiased information. 88.111.238.101 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the information about John Macenzie removed? It is a well known fact in the school that is was John Macenzie who was suspended. Pupils WERE told that he had been suspended and they were also later told that he left of his own accord. I do not see why information regarding our school should be removed by someone who is not associated with it, nor who knows anything about it.

The information was removed because it failed Wikipedia official policy that information, particularly derogatory allegations against living individuals, must be verifiable - that is, published by reliable sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that this happend. I think you just removed it for your own self amusment. I thought Wikipedia was meant to be about people adding information, in there own words, not people removing information. Encyclopedias are meant to give as much information as posssible.