Talk:Rye College

Misgendering Controversy

I edited this section to make it more formal/accurate and grammatically correct. This is a newly-emerging incident and i imagine others will want to add to it. Thought I'd get the conversation rolling. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to add reliable references for this to stay on. Traptor12 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see that someone else has now added references. I've further amended the text to make it more concise and give better context. 82.38.214.252 (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Please add this statement to the gender identity controversy section:

A spokesperson for the school, said:

“We have now met with the Department for Education (DfE) to share a comprehensive update on the events which took place before, during and after the recording.

“This meeting was a positive step and we will continue working closely with them to ensure any appropriate action is taken. We can confirm, no children at Rye College identify as a cat or any other animal.

“More widely, we understand that draft guidance on gender identity in schools is expected to be issued by the Government soon and we would of course welcome what we hope will be clear and helpful guidance to support all teachers and schools in addressing gender identity going forward. This will be particularly useful in developing future training to ensure staff feel confident, well-equipped and well-prepared to address these issues.

"We remain committed to offering our pupils an inclusive education in line with best practice and will continue to support our teachers in their endeavours to ensure that pupils’ views are listened to, and encourage them to ask questions and engage in discussion.” Wikademy (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

References

"Litter boxes in school hoax"

Removed this as it's biased, largely irrelevant and misrepresents what actually happened. The notion that the student identified as a cat was credibly reported by almost all major media outlets in the UK and there's no indication it was a deliberate effort at spreading misinformation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.8.42 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Gender identity controversy section - edit war

I restored the section and tried to make it a bit less biased.

But there's clearly an edit war and the section has been deleted and restored with no actual discussion. Let's try to build consensus on:

1. whether it belongs here
2. what should we cover about it

I think it does, and it's relevant that

• there was an extensive media coverage
• the government reacted to it, took a stand, DfE even investigated and made a snap inspection of the school
• the inspection didn't find anything wrong

The notion of school students identifying as cats is the central claim of the litter boxes in schools hoax, likely has the same origin and prompted a similar reaction among conservative politicians and media, so I think it deserves to be linked in some way. Currently, there's a see-also section hatnote with the link to the article and a mention of PinkNews linking the incident to the hoax. Idk if that's enough. Amberkitten (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Amberkitten: It mostly looks good to me; the only (small) thing I couldn't verify was that the recording was made secretly. Could we remove this, or did I miss something? Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amberkitten,

Personally I do not consider the matter to be materially relevant enough to warrant inclusion on this page. If this was to be added to the article on the litter boxes hoax as an example it may be relevant for inclusion as a brief example to be mentioned there.

My arguments for this Wikipedia policy/guidelines would be mostly linked to WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism.The issue of inclusion at play here largely boils down to "would this event be considered notable or enduring in the history of the article's subject (the school) as a matter of encyclopaedic merit" and it seems very hard to me to be able to justify it on that grounds.

The incident in question, while it did receive coverage in reliable sources, was of an extremely transient nature. The initial "story" (if you could call it that) broke in June 2023 and was resolved by July 2023, with no notable reporting since then. This makes it hard to justify as being a noteworthy or enduring.

It's also of relevance here to remember that the story is also one of a claim being made about the school and then being almost immediately disproved following investigation. Is it reasonable therefore to even include a short-lived and more importantly disproven hoax on this article, providing an undue weight to the event's significance?

Effectively, I believe this issue boils down to an issue of WP:ONUS. This information may have potential to improve the article on the hoax but it fails to improve this one. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Also to add, per Wikipedia:ONUS, the material in question should be entirely removed until consensus is achieved, so I'll be reverting to its removal until such a time consensus on whether to include it or not is achieved. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)