Talk:Raffles Junior College

Notable Alumni

The Venerable Shi Ming Yi is currently under trial in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore

on charges of conspiracy, misuse of funds and forgery. Should he still be listed even if he is "notable" in a negative sense?

Reference: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shi_Ming_Yi#cite_note-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.230 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundant info

Following is info which i deem redundant for the Wikipedia purpose, and which i have therefore removed:

Under Facilities section

Block A
Lecture Theatre 3 (200 Seats)
39 Tutorial Rooms
AV Projection Room
MEP Room
Music Library
Theatre Study Room

Block B
Lecture Theatre 4 (200 Seats)
Lecture Theatre 5 (200 Seats)
14 Tutorial Rooms

Block C
Lecture Theatre 1 (850 Seats)
Lecture Theatre 2 (350 Seats)
6 Tutorial Rooms
Amphitheatre

Block D
10 Seminar Rooms
8 Computer Laboratories
14 "Chat Rooms"

Block E
6 Physics Laboratories
6 Chemistry Laboratories
4 Biology Laboratories
Life Science Laboratory
Research Laboratory
Project Workroom
Students' Council Room
Bookshop

Block F
Parade Square
Canteen

Block G
Tennis Courts
Basketball Courts
Indoor Rifle Range

Block H
General Office
Deans/HODs Office
Staff Room
Media Resource Library

Block J
Performance Arts Centre (396 Seats)
Lecture Theatre 6 (200 Seats)
4 Seminar Rooms

Block K
Indoor Sports Hall
Dance Studio
Chamber Ensemble Room

Block L
Multi Purpose Hall
Health Fitness Studio
Chinese Orchestra Room
CCA Rooms
Spectators Gallery
Track and Field

Under Students' Council section

The 25th Students' Council was officially invested into office on 18 May 2005 with fifty-two elected individuals taking over the roles held by the 24th Students' Council. The councillors were elected into office by their peers after a vigorous week-long campaigning process involving speeches, posters, bio-data boards and display boards in the amphitheatre.

Executive Committee of 25th Students' Council
President: Zhang Junli
Vice-president: Amanda Zain
Secretary: Daryl Poon
Treasurer: He Kangya
Communications Department Head: Senthilkumaran S/o Sabapathy
Welfare Head: Junghans Tasani
CCA Department Head: Mohd Ilman

--Plastictv 04:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wee Shu Min

See archived page at /Wee Shu Min Inclusion Debate.

There does not seem to be a consensus that we are heading towards, I have archived the discussion as it was taking up a whole lot of space on the main talk page. If you must, post new points below this post. - fiveless 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• A consensus has been reached to include, under "Notable Alumni" - fiveless 09:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Till now, ryand's silence on my point (1) and (3) which I reproduced below is deafening :

1) Your offer to work together being civil, which everybody know is the case, and it is what every body is doing here (or else probably you will see all sorts of foul languages being used). However, you still did not address the issue of why it should be your version that remains until a consensus is reached? By always insisting that your version should be the standing version until a consensus is reached, I am not sure if it is the "consensus" way. So why not delete AC from RGS page until a consensus is reached?

2)Thanks for pointing out that "notable" can be used in a negative way, I learned something new today. Do you care to give me the name of the linguist?

3) Back to my point above, since there is no consensus on AC case, then why not delete AC from RGS page until a consensus is reached? icecold1 03:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you still on about this? Anyway, take the issue up on the RGS talk page if you're that bored. It doesn't belong on this page. -ryand 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That is because your silence on this is deafening.......icecold1 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever deleted the WSM inclusion, please stop doing that.This only contribute to the impression that RJC is trying to whitewash the whole episode.

By the way, ryand has still not reply to my point above either over here or in RGS page. icecold1 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That might have been because I've been away in Taiwan for the past week or so, if you'd bothered to check my user page. At any rate, I didn't reply to your points because I thought the incident had already been settled. Wee Shu Min's in the article, under the notable alumni section. I'll address your point on Annabel Chong on the RGS talk page, but I'm not expecting the discussion to go anywhere. -ryand 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Wee Shu Min did, it has absolutely no relation to the article. Why then do we not include her in the article Singapore, just because she is a Singaporean? Or should we not include her in girl, because she is a girl? Why do we not include her in the article elitism, because it is an elitist statement? Is it not the same as including it in this article just because she is a student of this school? Disclamer: Please do not edit the articles to include this. --165.21.155.91 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to clean up the article

It is rather difficult to read the article on RJC. The article is not comprehensive enough unlike that of Raffles Institution and it is not coherent enough. I think that we should start to re-organise the materials in there and add in more facts to make it more detailed. It is rather embarrassing that the standard of this article cannot match up with that of RI! --Russianroulette2004 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the coherence (the article needs to be tidied up a bit), it most certainly does not need to be cluttered with useless information like the RI article. Any expansion of the article should focus on verifiable things like the history of the college, and all information added need to be sourced. -ryand 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha maybe not the standard of the article on RI as of now. It was pretty good if memory serves me but currently they have added too much stuff on facilities. Who in the world really bothers on the nitty-gritty of the Hall or Boarding Complex! I think we need slightly more description on facilities and tiding up on the culture of RJC. --Russianroulette2004 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone and style

when reading the article i get the impression that parts of it are written by disgruntled college students or non-college students. There is a personal tone to the article which is most unencyclopediac. Statements such as "At present, Moor-Tarbet has the most number of points but the competition is fierce" would better be replaced by "___ were the first ever house champions in 2005". The "notable alumni" section also appears to be written by a politically ignorant person. 121.6.201.152 11:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign up as a user and identify yourself on the talk page so as to avoid vandalism. Anyway you mention a good point and that the tone in most sections of this article is inappropriate. I made a little amendments to the Student Council section, and I hope to make the other parts of the article as objective as possible. --Russianroulette2004 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be fine and good in terms of providing the bare facts of the school and its operating system - but one wonders if the tone of the article is slightly biased in favour of the RJC school administration. Changes to reflect the operational difficulties of the air-conditioning system has been constantly deleted - even though effort has been made such that each successive edit has become more watered-down in tone and neutral. While the article needs to remain objective, one wonders if this comes at the expense of reflecting commonly held school opinions - would it be permissible to list certain criticisms of the student council for instance?

Yes, if we had citations. Aha. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 16:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

Content under the "Recent News" section on the page Raffles Junior College is un-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. The actions of certain individuals of the school should not be included as they were not sanctioned by the school, nor did they take place during the course of school events, nor did they occur within the school premises.

In fact, the only link is between the events in the "Recent News" section and the school is that they happen to be students of the school in question at the time that event occured. --121.7.32.204 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

dead link / inappropriate citation

'A' Level Results In the 2007 Revised GCE A Level Examination, Raffles Junior College's first cohort of Raffles Programme students did exceedingly well with about three in four students scoring distinctions in at least 3 content subjects while about one in two scored distinctions in at least 4 content subjects. In addition, RJC produced 6 top students scoring the maximum of 9 distinctions in the examination. [4].

and

The first batch of Raffles Programme students received their A Level results on 7 Mar 2008. They have done exceedingly well. [9]

This information is lifted directly from the RJC website itself. The citations are linked to pages on RJC's own website: http://www.rjc.edu.sg/newrjc/admin/document/TopStoryForWebsite2.pdf http://www.rjc.edu.sg/newrjc/admin/document/TopStoryForWebsite5.pdf (both dead links)

I believe that an organization is not its own impartial judge. Using RJC's own website as a citation for proof of RJC performing "exceedingly well" (a phrasing which in itself carries certain implications) is akin to stating that Apple Inc is doing well and using a website on Apple's own homepage to confirm that. The judge of whether RJC has performed well or not cannot be RJC itself, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See WP:Conflict_of_interest#Examples for more details.

Furthermore, the citations lead to dead links.

I believe that inclusion of these paragraphs is in violation of existing Wikipedia policies and have hence taken steps to remove it. The batch of 2005 achieved about two in three students scoring distinctions in at least 4 content subjects - the batch of 2007 clearly pales in comparism. I do not have a citation for this, but I need not have one.

It is true that three in four students scored distinctions in at least 3 content subjects while about one in two scored distinctions in at least 4 content subjects and that RJC produced 6 top students scoring the maximum of 9 distinctions in the examination. However, this does not conclusively prove that RJC did exceedingly well (compared to who? against which benchmark? even the phrase is loaded with ambiguity akin to an advert.) The point i am trying to prove is that a clear citation from an unbiased source (e.g. MOE, Singapore or a Singaporean newspaper / research agency) is needed to confirm the fact that Raffles Junior College did "exceedingly well". Unless one can provide me that citation (which, for obvious reasons, should NOT come from the Raffles website), such wording is akin to advertisement, and is in violation of wikipedia policies.

Overmage (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger and Transfer of Info to Raffles Institution article

I know there is controversy with the merger, but facts will be facts. It's our duty to present things in their objective manner. So with the merger becoming official in January 2009, it's time to slowly transfer some of the information there while RJC article will become that similar to Hwa Chong Junior College. --Russianroulette2004 (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong objection to merger as per definition. Transfer of information, yes, but this junior college has (had) a significant enough history to be regarded a separately notable entity prior to the merger. The articles should thus remain separate. And since you appear to be pushing for a transfer, rather than a true merger, the template is unnecessary. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 11:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with objection to merger as per definition. A transfer is something I think we can all agree with. RI(JC) and RI's articles should remain separate, even though they are officially part of the same school, their hierachies, histories, and even policies remain rather different.Overmage (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why I have removed the 'A-level results' section

'A' Level Results

In the 2007 Revised GCE A Level Examination, (then) Raffles Junior College's first cohort of Raffles Programme students did exceedingly well with about three in four students scoring distinctions in at least 3 content subjects while about one in two scored distinctions in at least 4 content subjects. In addition, (then) RJC produced 6 top students scoring the maximum of 9 distinctions in the examination. [1].

This section was removed for a few reasons.

1. If we are to report on the cohort doing 'exceedingly well', then we will have to have multiple sections each for every time RJC (or RIJC) does 'exceedingly well' - for example my own batch had a record of 13 students scoring maximum distinctions, and the batch before mine had a record of 59.2% distinctions in 4 content subjects. As those are school records but are not put in (if you really need to, I can get a citation for what I've just said), this non-notable snippet of information does not belong either.

2. In actual fact, the 2007 A level examination results are poorer than that of the preceding batches. The batch of 2006 had 52% scoring distinctions in 4 content subjects and the batch of 2005, 59.2%. This is well in excess of the batch of 2007's. Interested people can drop by my user talk page and request citations. I do my research. Why do I state this as an argument? Well, it means that the 2007 results are even more non-notable.

3. The citation given for the statement that the students did 'exceedingly well' is found only from the RJC website itself: self-aggrandizing, similar to McDonald's saying its food is tasty and citing that in a statement "McDonald's released its new tasty Superburger." Also, the citation link is dead and no longer exists. Hurrr hurrr.

4. A similar edit of this sort was removed by me earlier. Refer to two sections above and why I removed them. The reasons are similar to those I am giving now. [[2]]

Overmage (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of a previously added statement and my reasons (apart from those I gave the last time I removed them)

The first batch of Raffles Programme students received their A Level results on 7 Mar 2008. They have done exceedingly well . The second batch of Raffles Programme students, the class of 2008, have "raised the bar again", producing RI(JC)'s best results in 28 years .

1. 'Exceedingly well' as defined by RIJC's own website being the citation - well done! WP:SOAP Not much explanation needed here; if you are still confused, read two sections up.

2. 'Best in 28 years' - the source quoted does not mention this anywhere. ALSO: I will give some of my own research, taken from RJC's own website! So now you cannot say that I am quoting biased sources - I am using their own sources against them!

Class of 2005

"59.2 per cent or 504 students scored 4 A-level distinctions"

Class of 2008 4 H2 Distinctions 577 (45%)

Class of 2007 4 H2 Distinctions 536 (43%)

Class of 2006

'Thirteen students from the RJC Class of 2006 emerged with top scores at the A-Level 2006 examinations' (equivalent to 13-unit all distinctions)

Class of 2008 4. 4 students offered 13 units of study, above the norm of 10 to 12 units prescribed by the Revised ‘A’ level Curriculum. Ming Quan, Yong Jin and Milashini had distinctions in all their subjects. (that means only three had 13-unit distinctions... versus the class of 2006's THIRTEEN...)

Dear me, dear me.

A drop in the number of top scorers, and a drop in the % 4 As. Maybe they meant that their SPORTS did exceptionally well? ;)

Seems like RJC's sources contradict the proclaimation that the Class of 2008 is the best in 28 years, and that the class of 2007 did 'exceedingly well'. Any other questions? I believe I've provided sufficient evidence against inclusion of that paragraph.

Overmage (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Impending name change. Rename article?

An impending name change of this to simple Raffles Institution. We may be looking at a forced merger of the two articles, or at the very least a name change of this one. Discussion welcomed. Overmage (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC) i think we can just name it Raffles Institution (Year 5-6), no need to merge both articles :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listentomepeople (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

G20

this line is not factually correct:

"Raffles Institution is Singapore's only member of the G20 Schools Group, which represents 20 of the most elite high schools in the world."

there are fundamentally two things wrong with this line:

1.) The G20 has more than 20 members, so, "represents 20" is wrong. 2.) The G20 is simply a group of schools sharing knowledge, and though membership criteria may be tough, it is by no means "the most elite schools in the world", many schools from the UK which consistently top the 'a' levels are not even in the list of members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langqourth (talk • contribs) 09:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the "best in 28 years" as well as repeatedly adding in each cohort's results

Achieving a school record is not notable news. If every year RI(JC) broke its own records, you would have to list its results every year, which turns this article into an archive.

The website used for citation http://www.ri.edu.sg/main/rafflesnewsdetail/?id=167 also makes no claims as to being best in 28 years.

Besides, I have already presented fact in my comment above as to why that claim is patently false, with evidence from RI's own archives.

With that in mind, do please stop uploading every year's results. Unless they broke some sort of national record, they are not noteworthy enough.

Overmage (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Curriculum

Raffles Diploma

Empty headers moved from the original article, feel free to restore once there is actual content under them. Overmage (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing Article as "Raffles Junior College"

Hi all! The edit as of 9 Jul (GMT) is to distinguish out the Main Subject: Raffles Junior College, from its counterpart Raffles Institution, as what this article is meant for. Since the article Raffles Institution already covered both the High School and the College sections, letting this article to remain in status quo will only overlap and mislead readers on the whole topic. It is more appropriate to independently present the existence of the former RJC, which functioned as a Government-aided JC with separate administration before 2009, as a piece of history.

Also, to better link up the history of RI, I will be dedicating a section for RJC (to show the history of RI's college section), and insert a link to this full article for RJC.

Will appreciate for any forms of support to help to sort out the history of RI and RJC, and to present their heritage in a more reader-friendly manner. Lyg 2001 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)