Talk:The Judd School/Archive 1

Archive 1

page name

Should this page be moved from The Judd School to Judd School? <KF> 23:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the title of the school is 'The Judd School'. People will still find it if they search for 'Judd School'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.250.149 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 July 2005.

random chat

Edited twice since yesterday? Wasd the entry made not deemed suitable? And who is Halsteadk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.165.83.216 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 July 2005.

A former pupil of the school! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halsteadk (talk • contribs) Revision as of 20:43, 14 July 2005.

Ohhhhhh I see. Well im current meber and trust me, 10z is the best. WAY better than 12-3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.165.83.217 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 July 2005.

Is that Keith Halstead???

After a career in the manufacturing industry Keith qualified as a Chartered Accountant with Ernst & Whinney in the City, before moving to Arthur Young´s Business Services Group.

A lengthy secondment to the Government´s Business in the Community developed a strong interest in owner-managed, and often struggling, businesses. He then moved to become a partner in two provincial firms with a varied general practice portfolio.

This you? You are my hero —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.165.83.216 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 July 2005.

Sadly not, he sounds pretty well paid - I'm a civil engineer. However, I was in 10Z a "few" years ago and have to agree with you - it is the best (apart from 12-2 of course, which I was in a couple of years later). :) But sadly Wikipedia is not for subjective information....... All the best --Halsteadk 21:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Advert?

Just out of interest, are we treating this page as some sort of advert for the school? And as such, is there supposed to be no criticism, flippancy or in jokes? - Elmsters

Perhaps read WP:NPOV... seems a pretty pointless question really. Djr_xi (Talk) 17:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In which case, mentionning of the "Bring Back Keith" campaign is merely representing on the Judd School entry how the students feel about their new headmaster. If I specify that this is how most of the students feel, then surely that's NPOV, as I'm just including their views. I could also add, for balance, that most of the teachers seem to tolerate the new headmaster, while none of them speak of him with the same respect as they did of Keith.

By the same token, the entry about Prefects seems to have been removed for no reason. I think that the entry was accurate and not that slanted. The editing of the Music section to show represent the views of the Govpol department are in fact adding balance to the entry, by showing that these rennovations still ignore some of the school's other departments, and that they perhaps feel somewhat marginalised. Perhaps you could suggest how my edits are innapropriate exactly? - Elmsters

Hi Elmsters and firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. I can't speak for Djr_xi, but as the person who previously reverted most of the anonymous edit a few days ago (perhaps this was you?), I have no problems with what you've written today. The previous contribution was too skewed to a particular viewpoint and I didn't think the comments about the head boy were particularly useful - however, some of the info on prefects was, which I then edited back in to the article (I see you have now removed this and re-written it in the Sixth Form section - and added a lot more to it in the process). It is possible to write more or less the same thing and make it unacceptable due to bad style or a slanted point of view - I think if you compare the previous contribution with what you've written that's a good enough example.

Additionally, I think the fact that you are editing as a "named" user rather than anonymously gives a lot more credibility to your edits. If you look back through the history of this page you'll find quite a lot of anonymous edits which I can only guess are from pupils of the school in their lunchbreak or IT lessons - this has been further evidenced by fairly abusive edits from the same anonymous user at a similar time on the Skinners' School page!! Wikipedia as a whole suffers a lot from vandalism by mostly anonymous users, which you'll find are quickly reverted by registered users who add the pages they have a particular interest in to their "watched pages". This of course is not to say that all anonymous contributions should be treated like this until they have been checked!

Finally, in answer to the original question, no this page, as with others on this site, is definitely not supposed to be free advertising, but is supposed to be balanced and written in a reasonably formal tone. (There are websites such as the Knowhere Guide that are more of a free-for-all, and are hence not a lot of use beyond having a bit of a laugh. At Wikipedia a lot of people, myself not necessarily included, are working very hard to create something that is an authoritative source of freely available and editable information, something that you might in future want to use as a good source of research to rival information sources you would have to pay for - the Judd School page, or any other school page, shouldn't be an exception to that.) What is "reasonable" and "balanced" is of course down to personal opinion but I would say your new contributions are there or are very close with minor, arguably knit-picking tweaking, but the previous contributions weren't on the whole appropriate.

Finally, finally - it's really interesting to see the contributions on this page such as yours and from people who are obviously current pupils, and to see how the school has changed (or not changed) since I was a pupil 12 years ago! Halsteadk 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Giving my two cents, "Bring Back Keith" is either non-existant or a complete joke - nothing of the sort exists at any serious level at Judd. Secondly, the views of the GovPol dept. are irrelevant for an NPOV article a) because they are opinions, b) because they are tongue-in-cheek, c) because they are completely useless to an encyclopedic article. The "marginalisation" of the "Lawton's crew" is of scant importance to the school as a whole - it only concerns a small part of the sixth form. Finally, any references to respect given to Masters relative to Starling is a) unnecessary, b) unsubstantiated, c) impossible to confirm, d) POV, e) in my POV, untrue. The views of two teachers do not represent the whole school, and any suggestion of the such is POV and should not be in Wikipedia. Djr_xi (Talk) 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a pupil at the Judd School currently and I know that Keith Starling was a much loved and respected headmaster. The bring back Keith campaign is very real and at one point a banner was hung out of the Cohen building. The banner had written on it "Bring Back Starling." And that's my two cents.

Founding Year

Sorry mate - my bad. I just saw the drainpipes at school had 1896... i forgot we'd changed sites. Djr_xi 20:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Website address

Despite User:80.189.253.203 claiming to be fixing the links, and regardless of whether the site is going to move to that address (and regardless frankly of whether I particularly care about what the school does with its website!), the .org address currently goes to an out of date version of the website, which has broken links and displays the hosting company's name in the links. No exhaustive investigation needed, this is all apparent by looking at the first few links on the front page - the ".org.uk" site currently has two newer ones, and the letters page at ".org" is broken. Please do not change the links until the site has actually transferred to that address. With respect, I'm actually assuming this anon user has no real involvement with the school's website and is just trying it on - no website developer would want to direct any visitor to a non-live version of a website, for any amount of time. And trust me, a link from Wikipedia can generate a lot of visitors - you want them ending up at the right place! Halsteadk 19:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Headmaster - Maidstone Grammar

Please note that the rumour regarding the headmaster's move to MGS has been removed by the school, and I have removed their notification of this from the article itself - description/justification for edits should not be written into the article. Unreferenced, potentially contentious issues like this should not be added into articles in the first place anyway... Halsteadk 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sixth form common room

Why was the section relating to the renovation of the 6th form common room removed?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.23.177 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

STOPMASTERS Campaign

The STOPMASTERS Campaign was set up by the student body. The current headmaster, Robert Masters, recently joined the school and many of his ideas are too competitive for the nature of the school. They believe that his ideas are made to compete with the other local grammar school, St Olave's Grammar School. The students handed in a petition at one point for review and Robert Masters took it down & threw it away without consultation. This proves that, contrary to what he says, he doesn't listen to the student body. On a survey of a small group of people, 8 were against the changes & 3 were neutral. One site has been started which can be visited at:

http://pub35.bravenet.com/forum/2957698422/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattyW Wiki (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

For inclusion in Wikipedia, articles and their content should be "notable". I'm going to argue that none of the "Timetable changes" section is relevant to Wikipedia as it has no real interest to anyone outside the school. If you think you know better than your headmaster how to run a school, then you should be posting your gripes elsewhere such as your discussion group, or if you're serious how about writing formally first to the head and then to your Local Education Authority if it's that bad. Certain elements of this section just look childish (eg "Mr." Masters, with the quotes) and serve to devalue the reputation of its pupils (i.e. you). Halsteadk 12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Wikipedia is neutral point of view, but much of what has recently been contributed clearly is not. Furthermore, all content must be verifiable, and given the lack of reliable sources in this article, this is far from being the case. If it cannot be sourced, it should not be on Wikipedia. DJR (T) 12:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a dicussion page for if not to discuss?

The discussion page is for discussion - not the article itself.Halsteadk 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This section was re-added again today, and I have removed it. It is POV until you can prove that (far far) more than 8 students out of 920 (from a random sample, not your mates) are behind the campaign. If you don't believe that 8 out of 920 is statistically insignificant, go and speak to your maths teacher. Halsteadk 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Timetable changes]

This part of the article clearly does not seem balanced. SuilSuil 08:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

SuilSuil

The information contained is accurate, but the head's reasons have not been given, so yes it is not balanced, but this will be resolved by adding to it, not removing it. Anyone brave enough to post his reasons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edmund1989 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 February 2007.

Unless the information is verifiable from reliable sources then the information is not valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even otherwise, all content must be neutral. DJR (T) 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made some dramatic changes to the previous edit to remove bias. However, I expect that most of you will not be happy, so have a look at what I've changed and see what else ou think needs to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edmund1989 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 February 2007.

Given that the predominant content of that entire section is a) largely irrelevant in terms of encyclopaedic content, and b) is neither NPOV or verified, I've deleted and amended most of it. DJR (T) 00:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

After the section was totally removed, I returned it with the unencyclopaedic section removed. I maintain that the information is of interest and value in its basic form. (Edmund1989 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

(NB, for perspective, it wasn't me who removed the material.) The second sentence still needs citing though as it is something that is disputable, especially if you are implying/alleging that the staff are not behind the headmaster and are telling the students this! Without backup, an allegation of that nature cannot remain and I really doubt there is a problem with the professionalism of Judd's staff - one member of staff is I guess likely to let a comment slip at some point, they're only human, but this isn't sufficient to mention it as it is POV. Generally you would cite by linking to a local news article - if it isn't newsworthy that probably is because it isn't of sufficient relevance/interest outside Judd and therefore isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. A letter to parents discussing the problem would be suitable otherwise.

The first sentence is encyclopaedic, but not likely to be of much interest to most readers... (Note this whole issue isn't unprecedented - there was a similar change in the early 90s when Wednesdays changed to 9 periods resulting in a bizarre to-the-minute timetable IIRC - not sure if that changed back.) A more general comment on the article is that writers should also bare in mind that Judd is 100+ yrs old and it is inappropriate to have half the article detailing the last couple of years. Halsteadk 18:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This page should show all the curriculum changes

Many may want information on all the curriculum changes coming in in September, not just the number of periods in a day. I don't think they're on the school website, which makes it yet more important. Please do it, as you probably know more about them than me Telewatho 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Note for Telewatho on last edit: this was not a rumour and was admitted by Mr Masters, but obviously this cannot be verified as a fact (unless anyone was recording the meeting!)so it has to be treated as if it is not a fact. (Edmund1989 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

CCF Section

I second the suggestion that the currently separate CCF page be merged into the main page. Is there really any need for a separate page? There isn't a separate page for the rugby team, the cricket team etc. Tomlock01 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Taylor (1988)

I've noticed the source "Taylor (1988) is being used for a multitude of citations, but doesn't appear to be properly referenced anywhere. Something along the lines of Taylor, X. (1988) - "(Book Name)", (Publisher), ISBN ########### is probably needed. DJR (T) 01:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep my bad, I'm in the process of improving this article, which also explains why there are incomplete sections etc. I haven't got round to adding a bibliography yet, but I'll do it asap. Tom (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School: sources

If anyone has any additional sources for this article, please let me know. Tom (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can look through the OJ Library for extra sources for the history section, if you would like. I doubt I'll find much more than Taylor, though. —188.220.161.100 (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the OJ library? But anyway, yea that would be good. If there are any books that mention the school that aren't listed, it would be good to add them in. Tom (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FA

Congrats on all concerned with getting this to FA. I'm just wonderig however, why the infobox is still incomplete. I migt do this myself If I get time later. --Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! In what way is it incomplete? Just because certain options are available, doesn't mean they should be used. Tom (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite true, but easy to find, core information is usually expected. Don't worry, you have the FA already, and I'll fill those gaps in the next couple of minutes :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a reference for the Ofsted claim made in the lead. The Wikipedia rules of referencing the lead section are ambiguous. On one hand, the leads of important articles, such as GA or FA, are expected to be able to stand as a mini stand-alone article, and thus may require sources. Other interpretations of policy may suggest that references are not needed if they come later in the article. AFAICS, the Ofsted claim only appears in the lead and thus should be referenced. We wouldn't want this to be a reason for a drive-by demotion. --Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I entirely agree that for alumni there is a strong case for leaving them as a list. In fact, if there are plenty of them, one can do THIS.--Kudpung (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, as an ex-Brookie, I can't bring myself to edit the article. The Notable alumni section would be better presented as a bulleted list IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph

"The Judd School is now a music and English and science and mathematics specialist school." Shouldn't we just use commas ? Or is my OCD is just ringing and it's a acceptable norm ? Ezhuks (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know of any special reason to be employing so many instances of the word 'and' in sequence. I agree that it should be changed to commas. Neelix (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the school is a 'music and English' and 'science and mathematics' specialist school. They are two different specialisms. Tom (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How about rewording to a Music and English and also a Science and Mathematics specialist school. - I know I only went to the Secondary Modern next door, but shouldn't all subjects be capitalized as Proper Nouns? Mjroots (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Country

Shouldn't the country of the school be mentioned in the lead for the non-British out there who don't know where Kent is? That's a pretty pertinent piece of information, if you ask me. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the lede and the infobox. Where else do you believe it should be highlighted? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you added it. I think that addition definitely should suffice. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

My changing of this section to a see link was reverted with the claim that the target was unreferenced. Verification is available by clicking on the linked article for each person listed. Is the duplication of info in this article and at List of Old Juddians really necessary? By that, I mean that the Notable alumni section should revert to a {{see}} link IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely right that it was reverted as that other article you refer to has no refs whatsoever that any of those people attended Judd. The fact it also states the person went to Judd in their own article is irrelevant unless that article has a ref for it - Wikipedia cannot source itself, and if the first person in the list is anything to go by, their own articles do not contain sources either. A lot of effort has gone into providing refs and these must not be lost. You are right that the info should not be in 2 places and I would also say that, despite advice given to help this article to featured status and despite any WP policy on this, a list *IS* appropriate for this - the paragraph of prose is virtually unreadable and not helpful. Halsteadk (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Judd School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214080643/http://frog.judd.kent.sch.uk/user/74/70342.pdf to http://frog.judd.kent.sch.uk/user/74/70342.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814072018/http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/renewableuk-news.cfm/2014-05-01-Tom-greatrex-mp-confirmed-for-global-offshore-wind to http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/renewableuk-news.cfm/2014-05-01-Tom-greatrex-mp-confirmed-for-global-offshore-wind

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)