Talk:East Sussex College

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Criticisim

I started the criticisim part on the page and i feel it has become wishy washy with stuff about the head of the college it is no longer criticisims but a news diary for Dr John Blake and the people who are campaigning against his pay rise. This has resulted in there being no criticisim it states that computers are been invested in the computer I sit at in the main It centre is a X-Stone computer and is most likley 10 years old and although there are newer computers they are not always up to speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There Are Still Problem's With This Article

People keep mergering John Blake with the criticisim section this is not appropiriate as there is a lot of information to be read also there are a few un-cited sources in the article for example what survey did these students take and also on a point of neutrality what were other student's view points on the college some bad one's would be appropriate to create a sense that this article is un-biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to resolve dispute

I work at the college. I am also new to the editing process of Wikipedia and am still trying to get to grips with it, so please bear this in mind.

We understand that that there will be criticism and that Wikipedia is based on balance and verification. The stuff about the facilities and complaints of overcrowding etc is ok, but we feel that Wikipedia is not the place for discussions about John Blake, the Principal – a blog site or the Facebook page would be a more appropriate forum.

I would also like to point out that John Blake doesn't chair the Corporation Remuneration Committee and he didn't attend it. The Chairman of the Corporation, Dick Holste, chaired the Committee.

I know the information about the new academy is not accurate. There has been no offical announcement of new arrangements with Eastbourne Technology College. I think there should be some citation.

It is inaccurate to say that choice for young people in Eastbourne is being removed. In fact, more courses then ever are on offer. The two learning brands, Park College and Eastbourne Vocational College, will continue to offer differentiated provision at the Eastbourne campus.

Ideally we would like to have just fact, figures and what the college offers on the site as seen on many other colleges' Wikipedia entries. To the Wikipedia editors - would you please let me know how the neutrality of this site can be restored as we want this to be a useful article for members of the general public.

(Sonny E (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid the college doesn't get to decide what the article is about. By all means contest the appropriateness of some information and of course the contribution of a member of staff can be invaluable for preventing inaccuracy. It would be inappropriate, however, not to include discussion of the John Blake affair, though I don't think the current level of information is fitting. When I have finished prelims I shall return to editing the article. JacobJHWard (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Criticism

Re: the computers. It's a well-known fact at the college that computers which are 5 years old are replaced each summer - therefore the PC you are using cannot be as old as you say. A lot of people don't replace their home PCs as often as that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRindt (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly say it's a well-known fact. Besides, since they're replaced with more shit computers it doesn't make a great deal of difference. The network was stupidly slow from what I recall. JacobJHWard (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously never looked at the specs of them... again, comparable to or better than most home PCs. Sure, you can't exactly run World of Warcraft or whatever on them - but they're not meant for that. I can do my work on them just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRindt (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update July 24

Hi everyone, I have updated the introduction section to Sussex Downs College with a more detailed and up to date overview this afternoon. More sections to follow, underlining areas such as Investors in People, OFSTED, Every Child Matters, Courses and Student Voice information. Many thanks, Commic8 Commic8 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update 30th July

Hi I am very happy about the work done to the article in recent months the article is much more well balanced now and the neutrality problems I think have been resolved Information is laid out clearly and keeps to the point. The title blakegate is very clever and there is lots of new information I would like to thank everyone for there hard work on making this a more balanced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talk • contribs) 11:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up

I agree with someof 03jmgibbens comments at the top of the talk page. Certain sections read like a succession of tabloid news reports, which may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. School articles are rather special and should contain the basic facts, a simple outline of the curriculum, a history, and the school's major achievements - all presented neutrally and without the hype. reportingon controversial issues such as items covered in sections Merger with Park College, Industrial relations, Criticism, and Blakegate needs careful consideration as to whether they should be included in the encyclopedia at all, as it creates the problems of striking a perfect balance of neutrality in the Wikipedia article as a whole; often such items are of news value only, in particular only of local interest.
I would also add that any information from the college's own website should be used with extreme care, as the most recent Ofsted report as in 2007, and there is a possibility that the website does not accurately, or factually, represent the content of the report.
Editors are also reminded that it is customary to sign their contributions to talk pages.--Kudpung (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I agree with the comments above, the detail about mergers, industrial relations, "Blakegate" etc are not really appropriate- this is afterall an online encyclopedia and should contain just basic facts about this school? I think it should be deleted or at least cut down, I am not sure about the references these entries cite either, a blog from a union rep and also various articles from the press- in the press reports the college actually challenges some of the information- how come they are not in the entry? --User:Commic8 21st August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Request

Could an experienced wikipedia admin be involved in this article to fix it as there are ever increasing problems with the article. There are neutrality issues citation problems and this needs urgent rectifacation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]