Talk:Eton College/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Historical links with other schools" section

I have deleted this section as it seems a conceit to suggest that these two Indian schools have "historical inks" with Eton. The article cited to back the claim hardly mentioned the two schools (two citations each) and only suggested that some of their teachers had been old Etonians. That is hardly a "historical ink". There would literally be scores of schools around the world where old Etonians have been teachers. If that classified as a historical ink why not mention those schools too. What about schools that have historically played sport against Eton or those that have teacher or student exchanges? Would those not also be historical links. The section adds no value to an understanding of Eton and looks like a "peacock" attempt to allow the Indian schools (which look like impressive schools in their own rights) to bask in the light of Eton.Nuffynuffy (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the inclusion of the passage, and I would ask that you don't delete it again (per WP:BRD) until a consensus has formed here. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The source mentions links in a historical context but it is not clear that they are sufficiently notable to merit mention in the article. I do not recall seeing evidence of any such links during my time at Eton in the 1970s but perhaps they have been reestablished since. Viewfinder (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag has not addressed any of the issues raised in my post of 6 Feb. To restore this section those specific issues need to be addressed, rather than just asserting that "I see nothing wrong with the section". Also, I am familiar with WP:BRD. Nuffynuffy (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, please do not persist in deleting the section. You say you are familiar with it—then you have no excuse whatsoever for ignoring it.

Your reason for deleting the section is that "it seems a conceit to suggest that these two Indian schools have 'historical inks' [sic] with Eton" – but that's an entirely baseless assertion. Surprised as you may be to hear this, a clear, unambiguous reliable reference from BBC News actually trumps your own opinion. The source says:

Now the strong links between the famous "playing fields of Eton" [...] and the Raj will be celebrated at an exhibition at the school, due to be staged in April.

The only reason there could possibly be for not, on this basis, having a passage in the article noting these strong links, would be if the BBC was mistaken, for which a more recent, stronger reference would need to be provided.

As always, on Wikipedia, feel free to request wider community input.╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 12:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: how many Prime Ministers?

When the article notes the number of former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom attended Eton, what figure should be quoted? 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC comments from TreasuryTag

A large number of eminently reliable sources have stated that twenty Prime Ministers attended Eton. The BBC cited nineteen (though this was years before David Cameron was elevated, which makes twenty). The Independent is in exactly the same position, as is the Star News.

Both here and here there appears to be consensus that the number was nineteen (both discussions took place pre-Cameron). Viewfinder (talk · contribs) appears to be the only person suggesting different, and s/he insists that the sources are "in error". Oh dear. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to Viewfinder's comment(s) below, I invite them to provide a link to any discussion with a consensus to list 18 Prime Ministers. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to Viewfinder's comment(s) below, I invite them to provide a link to any discussion with a consensus to list 18 Prime Ministers. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I invite them to provide a link to any discussion with a consensus to list 18 Prime Ministers. Note that my actions were not without explanation, as my edit-summaries will show [1] [2] – ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to Viewfinder's comment below, I suspect that s/he is being deliberately obtuse. I did not ask you to point to a discussion where the school's website was linked to. I asked, in very clear language, if you could link to a discussion where a consensus/majority/more-than-one Wikipedia editor(s) agreed that the article should quote the figure you wish as opposed to the figure that the BBC and the Independent have. If you cannot do so, that is very telling. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 16:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Viewfinder, you stated that "the consensus was in support of 18 UK Prime Ministers" – do you stand by that statement? If so, please link to the consensus. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you reverted anyone with a different opinion to yours and assumed that to be tacit agreement. Fair enough. (As for the formatting, this is how RfCs are supposed to work – see here for an example.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the single most pathetic thing I've seen all day, and I saw a photograph of George Osbourne this morning. Intentionally disrupting the proper flow of an RfC is actually not allowed; if you continue to do it, your comments will continue to be moved back into the correct section within a couple of minutes.

And just to make my above point absolutely clear, you do not own this page, and I would advise you not to continue behaving as if you do. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC comments from Viewfinder

The issue was discussed here about two years ago. The consensus was in support of 18 UK Prime Ministers; it is not clear if the 19th claimed by sources was an NI prime minister. I did not insist that the BBC source was in error; there are other possible explanations. Viewfinder (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to centre around whether we include:

• The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland James Chichester-Clark, who was definitely not a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
• William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland (see link below)
• James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave, who never formed a government.

The figure of 18 excludes all three. The above sources evidently include one of them; it is not clear which one. The issue is in need of clarification. Viewfinder (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have found the source, it's here. The Thai PM is not a UK - or former - PM either. Perhaps we should re-word the lead section, but the current wording as it stands is consistent with the official school source. Viewfinder (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Follwing the earlier discussions, the figure of 18, with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom link, was stable for more than two years. There are 18 former OE PMs at List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. There is a technical inconsistency in that some of them held office before the union with Ireland, but I think the above school link should clarify the situation.Viewfinder (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Eton_College#Prime_Ministers_2, an editor quoted the school website. The figure of 18 was then stable for more than two years, until an IP changed it to 19, then reverted himself. Then TreasuryTag changed it to 19 without any edit summary or talk page explanation. I have since footnoted the 19 claim. Viewfinder (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, I think that the above paragraph is an adequate response to your demand. Viewfinder (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, are you still challenging the figure of 18 and the school website? If so, who is your 19th? If not, then I see no point in continuing this discussion. Viewfinder (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 212.84.121.174, I have added the above reference to the lead. Viewfinder (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I considered that the long term stability of the article and lack of further edits on the subject to be implicit consensus. Whether or not you agree is not relevant. And please leave this response here, where it will be clear to other editors that I have been responding to your requests. Viewfinder (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TT, while you persist in pointing your finger at me, I will continue to respond to you directly below and not permit others to get the quick impression that I am unable or unwilling to respond. Viewfinder (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TT, a direct link to the guideline that I have been breaking would be nice, but OK, you win. I will keep my responses to your invective here. In response to your accusation of article ownership I would point out that after another editor quoted the school website there were AFAIK no further edits to the figure of 18 for two years until the IP edit earlier today, which was made in good faith and quickly self-reverted. If you still dispute the article as it stands then I hope we can continue this discussion in a civil manner. If you do not dispute the article as it stands, then there is no point in continuing with this discussion. Viewfinder (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC comments from 212.84.121.174

The BBC News page has Cameron down as the 19th Prime Minister http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8622933.stm 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.121.174 (talk)

Why not just explain the issue?

Why not just explain the issue? In the article, write something like "18 to 20, depending on the source" and then add a footnote that explains the disagreements between the sources in more detail. —Lowellian (reply) 07:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The explanatory footnote is there. I suppose that we could write "18 or 19", but the list is not in dispute. If we give equal weight to 19 in the lead, who might be the 19th? Can it be seriously argued that any of the four PMs footnoted in the school article were UK PM's? Viewfinder (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lowellian makes a good point. The point listing PM's is to highlight the number of attendees that rose to leadership. Whether it was the UK or not is perhaps secondary. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is linked to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.Viewfinder (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's an easy solution to that... ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose your easy solution. Viewfinder (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lowellian (talk · contribs) and Elmmapleoakpine (talk · contribs) made a suggestion. As far as I can tell – not that you made your position very clear – your reason for not adopting their suggestion was that, "The sentence is linked to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." I cannot believe that you need it spelt out this clearly, but my solution to the problem of the sentence being linked to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom negating the users' suggestion above is that we unlink it, this being a wiki and all that. There, didn't hurt, did it! ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You did not make it clear - to me, at any rate - that you wished to unlink PMUK and IMO it is a helpful link which should be retained. Instead of blatantly implying that I am being stupid and pedantic, please state precisely your proposed solution. Viewfinder (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The footnote contains a link to the school website which supplies a detailed and clear explanation. Viewfinder (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes contain references for everything, so we can delete the article then.

Or not.
No. Let's not. Let's make the article good. I agree with Lowellian (talk · contribs) and especially Elmmapleoakpine (talk · contribs) – do you have any particular views on this, Viewfinder (no pun intended), or shall I go ahead and do it? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please put forward your solution here first. I see no need to expand the lead section, although we could expand the footnote. Viewfinder (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, for the impaired, here is my idea: we remove all references to Prime Ministers from the lede section and instead add a paragraph, stating the facts as we know them, and as Lowellian (talk · contribs) and especially Elmmapleoakpine (talk · contribs) have suggested, in the section of the article entitled History. Do you have any objection? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Or, better still, in the Overview section, since Cameron isn't history [yet] and it's closer to the lede in terms of importance. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of references to Prime Ministers from the lead section (as I prefer to call it although I concede that "lede" is used by journalists) and strongly object to the your uncivil use of the world "impaired". I am open to specific suggestions re clarification in the lead section, and do not oppose the expansion of the footnote in line with the spirit of the proposal by Lowellian. There is more detail in the Old Etonians section, this too could be expanded. Viewfinder (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. I have conducted an Internal Review of my demeanour, and have come to the conclusion that the original decision was correct.

Do you actually have a reason to oppose the deletion of references to Prime Ministers from the lead section as you prefer to call it? Because once we get that sorted out, we appear to have a consensus in favour of a clearer and more detailed discussion of Etonian Prime Ministers! Splendid! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 18:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My opposition to the deletion of references to Prime Ministers from the lead section is based on my view that the subject is of sufficient notability for the lead section, that it has been stable for a long time, and that only you appear to want to delete it. Lowellian talks about adding an explanatory footnote, but the footnote is already there. Viewfinder (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the school website page appears to have vanished, but anyway..... I've added a slightly more detailed passage into the Overview section, as well as what was already in the lede. I trust that this is satisfactory. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not oppose "including the incumbent, nineteen Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, as well as one Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, attended Eton", but I don't like the repetition of what is more of less the same sentence. I propose that we put the above in the lead section and restore the overview to its original. Re the school website, I do not know why this has vanished, its disappearance may only be temporary. If not, but we have other references. There is no factual dispute, the dispute is only about the wording. Viewfinder (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On checking I find that the PM link at [3] now reverts to Wikipedia itself and is therefore no longer an external and ergo valid source. Viewfinder (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rfc comment from a latecommer

The article has links to a number of separate lists of Old Etonians. Is not the simple solution to create an article listing them all. This should provide the material to resolve the issue. Viewfinder's comment of 18:39, 26 May is probably a good solution to the controversy. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not call This edit a "minor restructure". It was made without talk page reasoning and, as implied above, I do not agree with it. I would have reverted it sooner, but I have been away from internet contact. Now let's debate it properly before it is reinstated. Viewfinder (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't explain why you do not agree with it then it's very hard for a consensus to be formed. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And just because you do not agree with it doesn't mean that it cannot go ahead, by the way. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I regard the material that you are moving to be of sufficient importance to merit mention in the lead section, and I don't think it belongs in the overview section. It is already in the old boys section. If a consensus or majority emerges here in support of your changes than of course I shall discontinue my opposition to them. Neither of us owns the article. Viewfinder (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But as we have established, to go into sufficient depth on the issue of how many Prime Ministers attended Eton, would render the passage unsuitable for the lede due to its length (as you yourself pointed out, I think). There is a clear consensus to note the numerical issue, so the question now is simply: where to put the material? If you have any suggestions, I would welcome those. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My first suggestion is that we settle this matter here per WP:BRD and you stop imposing changes on the article in the absence of talk page support for your position. Mention of PMs in the lead section is hardly going into depth (the NI PM and any other detail can go back into the footnote). My version was stable for two years. Viewfinder (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, can we settle the point that the length of time "your version" was stable for is irrelevant. There is no Wikipedia policy saying that just because something sits untouched for a certain length of time, it is automatically acceptable. Plenty of hoax articles have been in place for months: are they all immune to deletion because they've been "stable" for a while?

Secondly, there is clear consensus that we discuss the numerical/NI issue in the article. As I'm sure you agree, such material is not suitable for the lede. So, where do we put it? (I'm also not convinced that the Prime Ministership point is so notable that it merits a place in the introduction...) ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 08:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

As far as I have been able to tell, whether Eton has nurtured 18 or 19 UK Prime Ministers depends on whether James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave is included. There are differences of opinion about this. He is not on the above list, presumably because he never formed a government. Therefore, for consistency, I propose that we leave the number at 18. Viewfinder (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are 19, including one abroad. Fuzzibloke (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are sure, please identify the "one abroad". Viewfinder (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly difficult to look up the list on the website.

"Eighteen Old Etonians have been Prime Minister of Great Britain and one has been Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. In chronological order of office:

Walpole, Sir Robert, KG, 1st Earl of Orford (1676–1745) PM 1721–1742

Pitt, William, 1st Earl of Chatham (1708–1778) PM 1756–1757, 1757–1761 and 1766–1768

Bute, John Stuart, 3rd Earl of (1713–1792) PM 1762–1763

Grenville, George (1712–1770) PM 1763–1765

North, Frederick, 8th Baron (1732–1792) PM 1770–1782

Grenville, William, 1st Baron (1759–1834) PM 1806–1807

Canning, George (1770–1827) PM 1827

Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of (1769–1852) PM 1828–1830 and 1834

Grey, Charles, 2nd Earl (1764–1845) PM 1830–1834

Melbourne, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount (1779–1848) PM 1834 and 1835–1841

Derby, Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of (1799–1869) PM 1852, 1858–1859 and 1866–1868

Gladstone, William Ewart (1809–1898) PM 1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886 and 1892–1894

Salisbury, Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of (1830–1903) PM 1885–1886, 1886–1892 and 1895–1902

Rosebery, Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of (1847–1929) PM 1894–1895

Balfour, Arthur (1848–1930) PM 1902–1905, later 1st Earl of Balfour

Eden, Sir Anthony (1897–1977) PM 1955–1957, later 1st Earl of Avon

Macmillan, Harold (1894–1986) PM 1957–1963, later 1st Earl of Stockton

Douglas-Home, Sir Alec (1903–1995) PM 1963–1964, formerly 14th Earl of Home, later Baron Home of the Hirsel

Chichester-Clark, James (1923–2002) PM of Northern Ireland 1969–1971, later Baron Moyola

NOTE: Notwithstanding at least one edition of the Dictionary of National Biography, the 3rd Duke of Portland (PM 1807–1809) was educated at Westminster, not Eton. The 2nd Earl Waldegrave has also been listed elsewhere as an Old Etonian prime minister — he did not in fact succeed in forming an administration (in 1757), and there is no proof that he was at Eton."

I trust that this will clear things up. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the issue had been settled. The issue had been stable for more than two years, but TreasuryTag amended to 19 without explanation. The BBC article states 19, but is either in error, or includes the NI Prime Minister. Viewfinder (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You an also addAbhisit Vejjajiva (current prime minister of Thailand). Surely he counts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli2.00 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: placement of 'Prime Ministers' reference

Should the reference to the number of Prime Ministers of various countries who have attended Eton (an issue which a previous RfC established to be complex and in need of detail) be placed in the article lede without detail, replicated in the body with detail, or simply placed in the body with detail? 09:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please place your comments in your own section, and avoid threaded discussions in others' sections. Thanks.

Comments from involved TreasuryTag

The only person, as far as I can see, against my proposal that we place an in-depth discussion of the Prime Ministers emanating from the school in the article body is Viewfinder (talk · contribs), who seems to favour blanket reverts which also undo grammatical corrections etc. I have requested the RfC because they do not seem interested in serious and constructive discussion. Their main (and oft-repeated!) argument appears to be that "their version" has been "stable" for two years, a notion which has absolutely no basis in reality.

Basically, nineteen British PMs (including David Cameron, the incumbent) have attended the school; also, one PM of Northern Ireland attended. To fit all this, as well as references, into the article lede is not only clumsy and un-necessary, but it is well outside the scope of the article introduction. I am conscious of Wikipedia:Lede#Relative emphasis, which states: "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." A couple of lengthy sentences about the number of PMs of various nations who have attended the school – which is what would be needed to avoid cutting out notable and relevant information – would give the point way more prevalence in the lede than it deserves, in my opinion.

Therefore, I propose that a paragraph about the number of PMs of various nations who have attended the school is placed in the body of the article, and not in the introduction. I suggest the "Overview" section, though am extremely flexible on this point. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 09:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Viewfinder's comments

• I think that mention of the number of Prime Ministers who have attended Eton should be mentioned in the lead section, and that I think that it is of sufficient relevance. Could you perhaps outline your reasoning? Provide any sources? Justify this position in relation to Wikipedia:Lede#Relative emphasis? Because I disagree with you, and making statements without substantiating them isn't going to help resolve this issue...
• ...section that discusses the subject in more detail (which should not be the overview section)... Why shouldn't it, and what is your constructive suggestion for which section, then?
• I oppose putting the 'Prime Minister' spiel in twice, particularly if it is going to be inaccurately and unfairly cut down in the lede. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 09:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  I do not see why it should be removed just because TreasuryTag insists that it should. I don't see why it should stay just because Viewfinder insists that it should... (Oh, yes: because "Viewfinder's version" has been "stable" since the Siege of Troy!) ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 09:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from involved Viewfinder

I have already stated in the previous section that I think that mention of the number of Prime Ministers who have attended Eton should be mentioned in the lead section, and that I think that it is of sufficient relevance. I think that a footnote, containing a link to the section that discusses the subject in more detail (which should not be the overview section), solves the problem of lead section length. Viewfinder (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the removal of mention of the PM material from the lead section if it is opposed by other editors also, but I see no sign of this so far. I do not see why it should be removed just because TreasuryTag insists that it should. Viewfinder (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead section: Including the incumbent David Cameron, nineteen Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, attended Eton and the footnoting of the detail with a link to the Eton College#Old Etonians section. Viewfinder (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The most recent posts call for the subject to be briefly mentioned in the lead section, then expanded upon in the body. That is what we now have, see Old Etonians section. Viewfinder (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved NickCT

“ Eton has a very long list of distinguished former pupils. Including the incumbent David Cameron, nineteen Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, as well as one Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, attended Eton.[2][3] ”

• Replicate in the body with detail - Is the quote above what's under debate? My casual opinion is that this material is notable enough to be included in the lede. It could perhaps be shortened to a single sentence in the lede, then expanded upon in the article. NickCT (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Alarics (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I also concur. The paragraph is also very clumsily written - someone needs to go to grammar school... Bazonka (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - given the wide range of Old Etonians, it does seem odd to concentrate on the exact number of former PMs who came from Eton, especially in the lede. Can I suggest that the reference to PMs be reduced and folded into a sentence saying something like: "Eton has a very long list of distinguished former pupils, including members of the British Royal family, nobility, famous Actors and numerous leading politicians including many former PMs." (not very well written, but you see the point) It is notable that there are numerous PMs who have come from Eton, but only in the context of all the other notable former pupils and their impact on the UK. Any controversy about exactly which ones can be explained, in brief, further down the page. In addition, the Lede does not do a very good job of summarising the article that follows it. I think it needs a re-jig.Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement that the material is notable enough to be included in the lead section, but that the wording was not satisfactory. But I don't like this edit, because it leaves the reader unsure whether DC is the 19th OE UKPM or the 20th. Please could we have more suggestions re exactly how to reword the material. I don't mind the version suggested above but I think there should be room for the number of PMs, can we replace "many PMs" with "the incumbent and 18 former UK PMs"? Personally, I liked the version that was stable for two years, which I updated here when DC became PM, although it did need referencing. Viewfinder (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have recast the offending sentence in a more concise form. Also I don't think Northern Ireland PM is of enough significance to mention in the lead. Alarics (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks Alarics. Let's hope it sticks. Viewfinder (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead includes the sentence: "Eton has a very long list of distinguished former pupils". Yes, you mention Cameron and other PMs, but I think some explanation of the sentence just is required to give context. To add to the sentence I suggested above: "Eton has a very long list of distinguished former pupils, such as members of the British Royal family, the nobility, famous Actors and numerous leading politicians, and nineteen British Prime Ministers, including the incumbent, David Cameron." Hope this helps. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the above is too long for the lead section. The PM count is the best example to illustrate the claim, we do not need more. The subject is expanded upon in the Old Etonians section. The PM is the leading public figure of the day, ahead of royalty, nobility and any actors. Viewfinder (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Major B that we should list more than just the PMs in the lede, if anything, because they are by no means the most important people which Eton has produced. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved Thparkth

The fact that such a large percentage of all the British PMs ever attended this school is certainly significant and interesting. It is also illustrative of the political and cultural standing and significance of the school. It should be briefly mentioned in the lead, and also expanded upon in the body. Thparkth (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved Itsmejudith

Thparkth's suggestion is fine. I expect that regular editors have been getting too close to this issue and seeing it as larger than it really is. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead seems to more of a joyous extolling of the greatness of Eton rather than a summary of the text contained in the article. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem a little WP:PEACOCK but then Eton actually is an extremely special case, indeed unique in its historical and cultural significance, impact on British life over several centuries, etc. and it would seem wrong not to reflect that in the introduction. I would suggest a compromise might be to remove the last sentence of the lead -- the bit about its present-day educational excellence, according to the Good Schools Guide -- to somewhere in the body of the article, since that is a fact of a different and possibly more transient kind. -- Alarics (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK with me to remove sentence, but still the lead should reflect the body of the article not just wax eloquently about the virtues of Eton. --BwB (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alarics. The above mentioned sentence could be removed and I am open to other specific suggestions re lead peacock tone, but, unlike lead material which I frequently remove from the leads of other independent schools, the lead material here is properly referenced. Viewfinder (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not questioning that the material is referenced properly. It just seems that the lead is written in a "peacock" tone and does not reflect the material contained in the body of the article. --BwB (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. I don't like the unexplained removal of referenced material, negative or otherwise. Viewfinder (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Old Etonians to become "Alumni of Eton College"?

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry with Harrow

Would anyone mind if I deleted this from the infobox? The rivalry with Harrow School is informal and therefore not really appropriate there. Eton has many other rivals among UK independent schools. Viewfinder (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Test for newbies

What is/was it called please? It included colours, "Pick up that piece of orange peel" etc. Is it online? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It was called the Colours Test, and required F-Blockers to give the House Colours of different houses in the school. It now rarely takes place, although all boys are still given a colours book, which lists all the school colours for the houses, and for each sport.

Fluffaduck Fluffaduck (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

IIRC the colours tests took various forms. Newbies were asked to identify other members of their house at house assemblies and subjected to hysterical laughter whenever they got one wrong. On some occasions they were asked to sing for the house prefects. Assuming that this sort of thing no longer happens, I doubt if the colours test is worth mentioning in the article. Viewfinder (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the book available? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the book is available form the college shop on the Eton High Street, although I can't really be anymore helpful, sorry.Fluffaduck (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Reinsertion of POV University Admissions material

The section on university admissions came across as a rant, there was far too much poorly sourced material and it was written with an obvious slant. I have removed some and reorganised and I hope the reasons for the complaint are still clear. Left Foot Forward is a blog: its opinions shouldn't be reproduced here. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I should explain in more detail my objections to the material I have removed:
1. I don't see see the "unfair and indefensible" quote in either of the two sources. It seems to have been invented.
2. Actually these outreach events took place over two years. [4]
3. An outreach event isn't a recruitment event, which is what the article seems to imply. It just means a visit to a school. It might have been someone from the Ashmolean Museum visiting to give a talk on Ancient Egypt, someone from the OED talking about how dictionaries are compiled, someone coming to judge a drama or debating competition. Usually these are talks given to sixth form classes on academic matters, which their teachers hope will increase their enthusiasm for the subject.They are extemely common in all school sectors and usually involve a single lecturer or academic. Any school can phone any university and invite visits, which is why in the past few years there have been tens of thousands of such visits from Oxford and Cambridge. Nine isn't very many.
4. Why have the sources been embellished with this "insider advice" material? It strengthens the editor's case but is surely either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Most independent schools and many state schools give their pupils interview practice in preparation for the university admissions procedures. The phrase "insider advice" (as opposed to "advice") implies Etonians are receiving confidential information that isn't available to other applicants, like what questions they are going to be asked. That is probably untrue and certainly a departure from the sources.
5. Why have these allegations been juxtaposed with material about the number of acceptances in Barnsley, Middlesbrough etc? This has no direct relationship with Eton and is taken from a part of the interview that doesn't mention Eton. Again it's borderline WP:SYNTH. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful background info. Strongly agree that Left Foot Forward is a blog not necessarily noted for wp:NPOV and not something I would use except as a method of locating other sources. Irrespective of accuracy, the extract was also too long. I would however like to get a summary of a respectable source to put things in context as this is an important issue and I'm grateful to previous contributors for that. Regards. JRPG (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing this reply until now. Unfortunately information seems rather scarce, perhaps because the story relates to Oxford and not really to Eton. It seems to be only David Lammy who spoke specifically about Eton. The most complete newpaper account I can find is here[5], with the responses of two of the headmasters here[6]. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate motto

On a PDF file issued by the college they say that there is an alternate motto. They also stress that no motto is official and just phrases that have caught on. Here is the link [[7] page 2 of 9. --Thanks, Hadseys 23:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominic West quotation

Is it appropriate to have in the section on Old Etonians Dominic West's statement about the image of being an Etonian being comparable to being a pedophile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipperdip (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti-semitism?

I have removed this sentence:

"Eton once had a policy of insisting that its pupils' fathers were British in order to surreptitiously exclude Jewish students."

The source cited was an article this article in a "Jewish affairs" online magazine called Tablet, which may or may not count as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes. The article simply makes this assertion without itself citing any hint of a source. In the comments below the article, a reader has written:

"Eton did not require students' fathers to have been born in Britain. That was only a qualification for people to apply for the King's Scholarship (currently about 70 out of more than 1,000 students at Eton). Macmillan had been a King's Scholar himself and personally intervened to get the rules changed specifically because he beleived them to have anti-semitic undertones. Within literally weeks of Macmillan's intervention, the rules were changed."

Without taking these latter comments (which also cite no source) as 100% gospel, there is clearly enough doubt about the original assertion for us to require more supporting evidence before it can be put back in the Eton article -- or, preferably, a wider discussion of the whole issue of Eton's admission policies and the ways in which they might be discriminatory (or might have been in the past), fully backed up by reliable sources. -- Alarics (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. It had bothered me previously. Slipperdip (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't bother either of you enough to attempt to confirm it, though! Shame on the pair of you.
To see the pages for yourself, go here, then type the word 'whiff' into the search bar. That will shoot you to p. 270, and you can scroll down to see 271.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But the Ayer book is not what you cited when I removed the sentence! The onus is on the editor introducing the material to provide the source, and you had not mentioned the Ayer book at all at that point. You cannot say "shame on us" for not finding a source that you yourself had not provided at the time in question. Rather, you cited the "Thatcher and the Jews" article in Tablet, where it is clear from comments below the article that the author is mistaken. One reader states there that the "father born in Britain" requirement applied only to the small minority who are King's Scholars, as I have quoted above. Another (Alexander Stomont) points out that, even if it were true, such a requirement would obviously not succeed in excluding Jews, of whom many were born in the UK. I am going to remove yet again the reference to the Tablet article as it is clearly just a wild unsupported assertion by a biased author. A J Ayer I take a lot more seriously, but unfortunately the Amazon page will not provide me with pp.270-271. -- Alarics (talk)

Quite so. You can't say "Shame on the pair of you". As it stood, the reference was inadequate. The reference to the Ben Rogers book is a different matter. Slipperdip (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Houses

Is it worth adding some sort of list of houses, with the name of the building and the housemaster's initials? I am willing to create a list, but was wondering whether is should be a seperate list page or a simple list on this page, and whether or not it is needed. Fluffaduck (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is needed. Slipperdip (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Etonians rename

There is a proposed renaming of Category:Old Etonians to Category:People educated at Eton College at this discussion page. Please note that the discussion is not a majority vote so contributions should be based on Wikipedia policies and independent sources. Cjc13 (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Article written like an advertisement

I request the editors of this article to remove all the apparent fluff from this article. Clearly, the Neutrality stand of Wikipedia has been compromised here. Statements like "No other school can claim to have sent forth such a cohort of distinguished figures to make their mark on the world" prove my point. I'll wait for sometime for the editors to reply to this post or I'll have to take the fluff out myself. Thank you for your time and patience.--Whichdramaeggs (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article is mostly written like an advertisement. The "No other school can claim ..." sentence is in quotes, not a statement by Wikipedia (it is from Nevill (1911)) -- I think, in the context, he meant no other school in Britain -- and clearly reflects what is simply a neutral statement of universally recognised fact about Eton, that it has produced a wildly disproportionate number of the British elite over the centuries, and continues to do so (the present Prime Minister, the present Mayor of London, the future King William, etc.). It is not suggested that this is necessarily a good thing. Many people think it a bad thing.

If you are looking for WP:PEACOCK stuff to get rid of, I would rather trim the largely unsourced section on music and drama, which does verge on the boastful. I think putting the Good Schools Guide quote in the last para of the lead is arguably also a bit much; maybe it should be moved to the "Tutors and teaching" section, or deleted altogether, since it conveys much the same information as the quote from the Independent Schools Inspectorate. Otherwise, I note that the article also contains what may be regarded by some as criticisms of Eton, past (corporal punishment, fagging) and present (possible abuse of charitable status, school fees cartel, Oxbridge admissions), which surely wouldn't be here if this were an advertisement. -- Alarics (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added some criticisms of Eton, where sources exist partly because of concerns I share with Whichdramaeggs . Our opinions don't matter but I cannot believe many Etons teacher would succeed in a sink school in Liverpool -arguably the most challenging task in education. No reliable sources -therefore it can't be included. The number of British prime ministers seems a poor measure of success given Conservative PMs are elected by colleagues -frequently former school mates. A much better measure would be Nobel prize winners or inventors though the school seems to have produced very few of either. The Ofsted report should contain suggestions for improvement which should be included.JRPG (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We weren't talking about how good or bad a school Eton is, or what might be the most suitable criteria for measuring its success. That is all completely irrelevant. What we were talking about was whether the article reads like an advertisement. I think the music and drama section somewhat does. I disagree with Whichdramaeggs that the rest of it does. I think the favourable quote from the Independent Schools Inspectorate is a reasonable thing to include; we are only reporting what they said. Ofsted doesn't report on Eton because the ISI does it instead. I have looked at the ISI report at http://www.isi.net/schools/6438/ and there are no suggestions for improvement or, as far as I could see on a quick glance, any criticisms at all. If you can find any, by all means add them to the article. -- Alarics (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right to say addition of critical material makes the article sound less like an advert, hence the implied requirement to find more. I highlighted problems of getting sources, and naturally Ofsted/ISI is the best recent source we have. The 2009 Ofsted report contains the standard section on "What does the school need to do to improve further" + a grading based on "The school's capacity for sustained improvement" but -as you point out -it leaves academic assessment to ISI. On page 15 of the ISI report it says "What the school should do to improve is given at the beginning of the report in section 2." Not very helpful I'm afraid as it doesn't appear to exist! Regards JRPG (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

By section 2 they mean "The success of the school and action points" on the sixth page. The "Main findings" (2(a)) consist entirely of complimenetary remarks, though there is an allusion to an earlier report that drew attention to a "small number of inconsistencies identified at that time in the areas of personal, social and health education (PSHE), monitoring of provision, the tone of some reports and the narrowness of teaching methods in a small proportion of lessons", shortcomings which the report says have now been "addressed in full". The "Recommended action" bit (subsection 2.5) reads:

2.5 The school judges its own performance and development needs very well. It is in a strong position to achieve its plans to:

1. Continue to develop independent thought and learning.
2. Pursue best practice in the use of information and communication technology (ICT).

3. Continue to develop its system of appraisal of staff.

In short, we cannot add criticisms to the article if no criticisms have been made. -- Alarics (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on section 2. JRPG (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for removing that tag and responding to the only example of "fluff" which the editor who added it supplied. Viewfinder (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I have removed a COI tag that was placed on this article. No evidence was adduced and I see no sign of it. -- Alarics (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am the editor referred to in that tag. FYI, I was a pupil at Eton College from 1970 to 1975. If any editor would care to supply examples of material that do not conform to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines then let's debate them here. BTW, if it were up to me this link would be added to the article. Viewfinder (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with writing about one's own school as long as the text complies with wp:npov and wp:v. -- Alarics (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I strongly suspect that most of our articles on schools stand or fall by the contributions made by their own old boys, old girls, or both, as the case may be. It would surely be crazy to discourage OEs from editing here. There might be an argument that the present Head Master and Provost would have a conflict of interest if they sat down together to polish up the page, but that scene is a little hard to envisage. Moonraker (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

John Gurdon "controversy"

Is this section really a "controversy" relating to the school? It's an interesting issue for his page, but not sure it's a "controversy" at all, let alone one relating to Eton as such. The point is about him and his school report, not which school it happened to be from. In fact the whole controversy section seems to be made up, as so often in the usual WP coatrack-style, of random, recent one-off stories of passing historical interest or relevance .. N-HH talk/edits 22:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree and propose to remove the recent Gurdon addition.45ossington (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is not properly described as a "controversy", though the story does reflect rather poorly on Eton's teaching standards as they were in 1949. -- Alarics (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hastings (Agatha Christie)

There is a pending request for a reference corroborating that Agatha Christie character Arthur Hastings is an Old Etonian. This is mentioned in passing in the 1937 novel Dumb Witness, but I only have a non-English version of that here, which would not be a helpful reference for most readers. Could someone with the English version take care of this? In my edition it is on page 81 (of 252) on the third page of a chapter with a title translating as "A visit to Miss Peabody". Thank you in advance. MarkM (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Added non-English reference myself for now, here and in Arthur Hastings. MarkM (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Norman's comments

I am not sure that Old Etonian Jesse Norman's claim that Eton is better "than other schools" at promoting public service belongs in the article at all, let alone in the lead section. While upholding the view that Eton promotes public service, I am not sure that it the emphasis it places on public service is any better than that of other schools. It could be equally argued that many Old Etonians owe their success to the humming of wires on the old boy network ("its not what you know, it's who you know"). The article has been criticised for reading too much like a school advertisement. The addition of JN's claim will imo exacerbate such criticism. Viewfinder (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have deleted the sentence. Of all the millions of public comments ever made about Eton, I don't see any reason for singling out this one (which in my view is an absurd remark) for inclusion in the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both for your comments. Please be assured I also want to improve the article and ensure it meets wp:npov. The edit contains a summary from two Wikipedia:Suggested sources and provides an up to date viewpoint complementing Nevill's opinion stated earlier in the paragraph. That's why it is positioned there. JN is both a former pupil and current advisor to the PM so his views are both notable and relevant. The fact that editors don't agree with him doesn't matter.

I have previously criticised the article as reading too much like an advert -see section above -Nevill's views being the main objection. JN's much more recent comments balanced with this guardian article criticism from Cameron's 1st shadow cabinet should make the article more balanced. I don't expect a problem and your comments would of course be appreciated, otherwise in a day or two, I'll rewrite a sentence as described and await constructive amendments as per WP:BRD.

Regards JRPG (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The balancing of your edit with a critical source would be better, but personally I would rather balance Nevill's comment by pointing out and sourcing the controversies of so many grandees having being educated at one school. Nevill's comment is undeniably true, both then and now, whereas Norman's comment is his personal and controversial POV. I would also disagree with the sentiments of the Guardian writer and point out that there were 6 OEs in Thatcher's 1979 cabinet and most of the others were from Harrow or Winchester; Cameron's cabinet has a much broader base. There may also be a case for expanding the issue into a new section. Viewfinder (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That the current PM, London Mayor and Archbishop of Canterbury, and a likely future King all went to Eton is both true and notable, albeit controversial. The personal opinion of a politician about why it is true is not notable. Viewfinder (talk) 1 How can a fact be controversial? Eton is undoubtedly one of the best schools in the world, and it would not be unreasonable to expect many senior people to emerge. The article says that Eton is one of four schools to remain unisex: Tonbridge is also firmly boys only. There may well be others.

I agree with Viewfinder. Including (especially in the lead) a quote made the other day from a minor rentaquote politician seems quite disproportionate and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. In significance and notability it is not remotely on a par with the quote from Nevill (1911), whose book is I believe one of the standard works on Eton and which represents the traditional mainstream view. Of course it could be said to be a POV book overall, in the sense that Nevill obviously liked Eton, but the remark about Eton having over the centuries produced a wildly disproportionate number of British leadership figures is simply a statement of fact. -- Alarics (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Public Schools Act 1868.

The article presently states that "Eton is one of nine English independent schools, commonly referred to as "public schools", included in the original Public Schools Act 1868." Whereas the article Public Schools Act 1868 suggests that the act only dealt with seven schools (I confess I have not read the act to see for myself but the editor has left a note in the talk page there). --81.23.54.142 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New section on 2013 Exam Question Controversy

The original version made several pointed claims about the question being discussed that were POV additions of the editor and/or the only editorial cited. The editorial's "morally defend the murder of civilians" compared to the question's "after two days of protest...protesters have been killed.... How will you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters...". The question posits explaining employing the Army. Our editor and the editorial have this as "murder". The question discusses violent protesters. The editor and the editorial reduced this to simply "civilians"

Sourcing "Eton College was criticised" to a single editorial is problematic in its own right, in addition to the text problems.

The new version is now sourced to two editorials. Yes, editorials criticize things. We do not include all, most or even a sizable portion of them. Rather, we wait for independent reliable sources to say that "(Subject) is being criticized for (reason)."

Additionally, we have editorializing about the content of the question. The question explains that the army is deployed to quiet violent protests and the question asks the student to "explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral." This has become "morally defend the murder of unarmed protesters by the Britsh(sic) Army". Deploying the army has become "murder" and "violent protesters" have become "unarmed protesters". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions over accuracy are absolutely not in doubt here. So why Summers, have you If the New Statesman's original article was inaccurate they would most certainly have been sued for libel by now and the facts of this case have been reported all over the world.

This could all be cleared up by an actual quotation from the scholarship exam perhaps? Perhaps you could add that? The wording is pretty shocking when one considers that so many ex Etonians are now in a position to make such decisions.

There is a heading marked CONTROVERSIES in this entry - and you truly believe this is not controversial I would like to hear your reasoning, I'm sure if you think about the implications of a) the so-called prestige and high standards of Eton, b) the way it was reported around the world and c) the dangers in the actions described in the question you will see this is both a legitimate, proven controversy and worthy of this accurate, referenced note.

It may be that others will find 'better' sources, but that is part of the collaberative beauty of what we all do here. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We need independent reliable sources discussing this factually, not editorials stating opinions. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Some possibilities: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/24/eton-entrance-questions-12-year-old http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/24/eton-college-shooting-protesters-exam-question_n_3330327.html John Kim (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

One can question the reliability of the Guardian and Huffington Post, but just about any media source can be questioned. It seems enough to be verified. I have the full quote from the exam (given below), but I'm not sure if it should go in - it seems like it might be too long. John Kim (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The year in 2040. There have been riots in the streets of London after Britain has run out of petrol because of an oil crisis in the Middle East. Protesters have attacked public buildings. Several policemen have died. Consequently, the government deployed the Army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have been stopped, but twenty-five protesters have been killed by the Army. You are the Prime Minister. Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral. (from the NewStatesman article)

The New Statesman article seems to me fairly ephemeral (as well as half-baked). Did the issue actually go anywhere? I foresee many weeks of fruitful activity as Wikipedia editors comb through every back issue of the New Statesman (and why not also the Spectator, the Economist and the Times Educational Supplement, while we are about it?), ensuring that every criticism which any columnist has ever advanced is faithfully recorded in an appropriate Wikipedia article, under the heading "Controversies".45ossington (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Uniform

Black and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.10.200 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Farming

The farming subsidies are laughable enough. They are small compared to the charity status and lottery payment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.10.200 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Eton attack

I seriously have to wonder at the appropriateness of including an "alleged event" that was not reported to police, and where an investigation into these allegations began only later once the parents of the girl heard her story about how she lost her purse. She told them it had been stolen by 4 boys on an Eton playing field or football (soccer) pitch.

So the proof that this event ever even occurred falls into categories best described as "unfounded" "unproven allegations" "alleged misdeeds"...or my favorite from the Daily Mail piece, a "strong rumor" being passed amongst other teens at Eton alleging the 4 may have been drinking too!

So as it stands now, the 4 will be punished only after the Eton headmaster finds evidence these allegations may indeed be true. But not until.

All in all, this just doesn't seem to rise to the level of relevant information we should expect in a descriptive article about Eton College...or any other place where thousands of adolescents, all with hormones a-raging, take advantage of their newfound freedom from parental control by committing acts that truly are disgusting or hurtful to others, but happen with great regularity every year at every school throughout the Realm.

Its a juvenile delinquency story, not a description of something that somehow reflects on Eton College as a whole.

I say it should be removed. What say ye? Mycos 03:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Too trivial to include, in the great sweep of history. So probably are some of the other events mentioned. -- Alarics (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Alleged schoolboy thefts are only significant if they cause a ruckus of the extent that the allegations against George Archer-Shee did. In the movie, he indicates that even he doesn't know what all the fuss is about.

Other schoolboy misbehaviour is only notable if the pupils revolt against the teachers, barricade themselves within the school, and defend themselves with firearms. I'm thinking of the one real occurrence of this (19th century I think), not of the fictional movie (20th century). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And with that I have decided to stick my neck out and remove the entire section describing the alleged attack due to the way even the section's header made specific reference to now-excised information. Mycos 04:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycos (talk • contribs)

I think that's fair. We don't know the full story & every school has its rogues. In some cases, its better to add a one liner just ensure to ensure people know its already been covered. JRPG (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Oxford University It has been pointed out that admissions to Oxford of Etonians have little to do with academic merit. The same has been said about Westminster School. High officials at Westminster are often officials at Oxford and Cambridge colleges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.32.1 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC) It's been pointed out -- in a more believable way -- that Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Greg Winter and Christopher Lewis are high officials at Westminster and the two, Oxford and Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.218 (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure how that is relevant. Is there a reliable source for the claim? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I thought admissions were still decided by the colleges themselves, as they have been for a very very long time. How would these Winter and Lewis people, whoever they may be, influence hundreds of tutors, at dozens of colleges, about which individual pupils each should admit? Also did you notice that a great many Eton students, and a great many Westminster students, either don't get into Oxford, or don't even apply? I wonder why that is. Perhaps it's because the OP's theory is a fairytale. In my subject year group at my college at Oxford, a subject mainly taught only in private schools, there was one guy from Eton, one from Harrow, one grammar school kid from northern England, one guy whose background I don't recall (but was quite possibly the smartest of all of us), and me. Academically, it was very tough to begin with, and the guy from Eton kept up with it just as well as the rest of us. Anyone even faintly mediocre academically would not have been able to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) See Talk:University of Cambridge#Prince Charles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.79.39 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk)

Economist article on changes brought about by recent headmasters.

Just to say I'll be adding some details from the Economist which I found informative. The intention is to balance the overall tone of the article. JRPG (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Blog link

This link to a blog by "Odeboyz" fails WP:ELNO#EL11. "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[4] one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." I see no indication that Odeboyz is a recognized authority. Actually, I see nothing about the author. Unless there is some particular reason to override the cited guideline on this, please do not restore the link. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eton College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724103819/http://www.hiltoncollege.com/exchange/2008duxbury.htm to http://www.hiltoncollege.com/exchange/2008duxbury.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Roger Lupton brass

Rubbing of brass of Roger Lupton at Eton

A photograph of the monumental brass (and armorials) of Roger Lupton (died 1540) in the Lupton Chapel (?)/College Chapel(?) would be a useful addition to his article. Seems no photo on-line anywhere as yet although illustrated in "Lack, Stuchfield and Whittemore, Monumental Brasses of Buckinghamshire", p.86; and a brass rubbing exists at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, ref: "Buckinghamshire 2/106", see commons File:RogerLupton Died1540 MonumentalBrass EtonCollege.png. Text per VCH Bucks ('Parishes: Eton', in A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 3, ed. William Page (London, 1925), pp. 261-275 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol3/pp261-275): "In Lupton's chapel are two brasses; the first bears the figure of the founder in a cassock and mantle of St. George, a scroll from the breast and a shield of his arms". Anyone out there who can help?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC))

Justification for a link to the 2011 Svalbard polar bear attack

Although I didn't add the link to the 2011 Svalbard polar bear attack, I have edited the article and I also added the item about a possible Al-Qaeda attack on Eton. Obviously neither implies any criticism of the school but it is useful information which en passant should encourage people to realise everyone has a responsibility for their own safety. Sadly those students in Svalbard appeared to think they were quite immune from any risks. This is not in anyone's interest. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My objection to the link is not that information about the attack is not "useful", but that it is not sufficiently relevant to an article about Eton. There have been literally tens of thousands of Old Etonians; is there to be a link to every Wikipedia article about any of them which contains information that is "useful"? It seems to me that the object of a Wikipedia article is to inform readers about its subject-matter, not to disseminate allegedly valuable lessons about personal safety in Polar regions. (In contrast, the information about the Al Qaeda plans for Eton is Eton-centric information which more readily justifies its presence in the article.) What do others think? 45ossington (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 45ossington. This is not an article about polar bears. -- Alarics (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eton College. 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/20130622140947/http://www.dorneylake.co.uk:80/visiting.html to http://www.dorneylake.co.uk/visiting.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225020702/http://www.kingswinford.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/com/kinver/kinverchurch.htm to http://www.kingswinford.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/com/kinver/kinverchurch.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606054450/https://www.kevinwarwick.com/events.asp?Date=15%2F9%2F2009 to http://www.kevinwarwick.com/events.asp?Date=15%2F9%2F2009

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) 19:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The infoboxes for the seven historic English public schools are, at present, inconsistent. Five have the School Type listed as ‘Independent’, one has it as ‘Private’ and only one has it as ‘Public’. Can I propose that, for the sake of consistency, they all have ‘Public School’ in the infobox. They are defined as such by the 1868 Public Schools Act. Is there a consensus on this? Garageland66 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Income

Whatever the name of the school, it is interesting to look at the financing. Many pupils have their fees paid by the Ministry of Defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See the Daily Mail on 15/9/2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The amount of £84,000,000 is mentioned, a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See the Daily Telegraph of 2/1/2014. £14,900,000 a year is spent on school fees for diplomats' children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eton College. 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/20110713121708/http://www.joyceimages.com/media/ji/thumbnails/small_Eton%20suit.JPG to http://www.joyceimages.com/media/ji/thumbnails/small_Eton%20suit.JPG
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927005008/http://www.isinspect.org.uk/report/0374.htm to http://www.isinspect.org.uk/report/0374.htm

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) 07:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

19c history ..inhumane living conditions

Could someone please expand this? As an interested reader it is impossible for me to judge whether the conditions were of the Black Hole of Calcutta variety, dangerous Victorian slum or simply substandard for gentlemen. Otherwise assuming there is a source for this, it needs to be attributed. Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of material out there about this. Both anecdotal from those who had lived in the Long Chamber as Collegers and from a number of reports. It seems that one is talking about basic living conditions, inadequate food, a complete lack of privacy and a culture tolerating bullying and oppression by other boys: For example:

'In July, 1826, contemplating matrimony, I went to the University Life Insurance Society for a policy. (It is always good for administrative personages to have a policy.) I went before the board — some sixteen men seated at a table covered with green baize — with friend Wray at the head. "You are a Fellow of King's, I see, Mr. Okes, from your papers?" "Yes sir." "I infer, then, necessarily that you were at Eton and in College?" "Yes, sir." "How long were you in College?" "Eight years." "Where did you sleep?" "In Long Chamber, sir." "All that time?" "Yes, sir." "We needn't ask Mr. Okes any more questions." And they did not. You may interpret this as you please. I thought it meant, "If you passed the last eight years of your youth in Long Chamber, and are alive at the age of twenty-nine, you are a fairly safe life."' see http://www.victorianweb.org/history/education/eton/bullying.html

I'm not sure which of the various Victorian reports into the Public Schools covered living conditions but I'm sure that at least one of them did, which lead to the reforms of the 1860s. It should be pointed out that the Long Chamber was the large dormitory (in the UK sense) for boys holding King's Scholarships. The rest of the school lived in Masters' or Dames' house or in private lodgings. Conditions there were on the whole much better (but depended on the financial means of the boys (or at least what their parents were prepared to spend!) It was something of a scandal at the time and there's certainly scope for a better description with some sources Dorset100 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added some extracts from Maxwell Lyte's definitive history explaining conditions in Long Chamber in the 19th century. See here for more details. At the time many of the Collegers also lived in private lodgings, to get away from Long Chamber.----Ehrenkater (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Fees

I've updated the fees for 2017 and made clear that, if there's any confusion, this is because Eton is a private sector school, as oppose to the free-at-the-point-of-use public sector schools. (I haven't changed the description from independent school to private school because the defenders of privilege will start shouting 'edit-warring'). Is there a problem with updating the fees for 2017 and making clear for readers why there are fees? Garageland66 (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)