Talk:Clifton College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikipedians who are Old Cliftonians

If any Wikipedians are OC's they might want to add [[Wikipedians by alma mater: Clifton College]] to the bottom of their user page. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

Walter Owen Bentley (founder of Bentley cars) should be added to alumini

I will check my book of old boys to see what's listed Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 06:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OC

some body should add Roger Alton to the Alumini list- he is the current editor of the observer

(header added by Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...))

Zoo land?

Bristol Zoo is between the college and Clifton Down, on land originally belonging to the college

But the Bristol Zoo article says that the zoo opened in 1836, long before the college was founded. Something wrong here? Loganberry (Talk) 02:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably a different initial site - College boys get into the Zoo for a nominal entry fee as a result Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell from the zoo's official site's history page - the plan given dates from 1886 - but there's nothing in the accompanying text to indicate a chnage of site. Furthermore, goodzoos.com has the following to say in its historical section:

[Gardens designer Richard] Forrest's designs for the gardens, the large central lake, the expansive lawns, and the siting of enclosures around a perimeter wall all remain very largely unchanged to the present day, and a century and a half later [my emphasis], visitors would almost certainly recognise the zoo from nineteenth century plans.

That section strongly implies that the zoo has been on its current site since the 1830s - so again we come back to the zoo being in situ well before the college was founded. I certainly don't doubt your assertion of reduced-price entry for pupils, but if the zoo was indeed there before the college it would seem that there must be a slightly more complex reason than that currently given in the text of this article. Loganberry (Talk) 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will email the College and ask them - as they should know! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As another possibility, though: my mother (brought up in Clifton) tells me that she thinks she was told by her father (ie my grandfather, who taught at the College) that the reduced-price admission has to do with the College allowing its car parks to be used as overflow for the zoo on busy days. I don't have any actual documentation of that, though. Loganberry (Talk) 11:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not heard of that one - and am not sure what car parks these would be - never remember this from when I was there! Still not had a reply from the College to my email. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she meant using other land as car parks? Anyway, if you don't get a reply I could try asking the zoo. Loganberry (Talk) 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The College has come back to me and said that they didn't used to own the Zoo site - have updated the page to reflect this incorrect College folk-lore! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoo entrance

When I was at Clifton (1979-1989) you could only obtain a reduction to the zoo entry fee if you were in uniform or had your school tie with you.

We needed our blue book Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The nominal fee, 5p when i was in the prep school ('87-'92) and 20p in the senior school ('92-97), was in return for the zoo using the prep school playground as a carpark during the summer holidays. If I remeber rightly you could use your tie for entry if you were in the pre however it was easier to take your blue book if you were in the upper school and didnt have a blazer with a badge, as the staff on the gates could not be expected to recognise all of the multitude of different ties worn in the upper school! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.197.38 (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable events at Clifton (1979-1989)

Stonehenge built in benches from the parapet on the Close by sixth form leavers in 1989. A School House attempt to release debris from a hatch in the roof of Big School during an end of term concert. A harrier jump jet low-level flyby at the 1988 Horsen Ford CCF summer camp. The sad death of Jim Hornby (much-loved and -respected Headmaster of Clifton Preparatory School) Prep school films changing from Jaws II to Bedknobs and Broomsticks at the onset of political correctness. Peter "Doc" Clay's recounting of the seminal "Skull Island" story. The fight between Mr Cowan and Mr Dixon. Stuart Andrews (Headmaster of the Upper School) taking on pupils in pillow fights at the School House fete. The scandal that followed someone making rabbit's ears over the Marshal's head in the 1987 school photo. Somebody losing the tip of a finger after slamming it in the door of the fives court. Chris Cottrell's unerring accuracy with a board rubber. Tony Cottrell's staff plays. The 1987 and 1990 expeditions to the High Arctic. The introduction of co-education in 1987 and the protests from boys whose Houses were taken over. The wall of hymn books that completely blocked the entrance to the Chapel.

Fees & charitable status

The paragraph below is clearly both irrelevant to this specific article and written from a definite POV. I've moved it here in the hope that someone can clean it up and find a home for it. Richard Pinch 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

“ Like all other English public schools, Clifton's excellent facilities come at the price of substantial fees. A number of scholarships are available. Like most public schools, Clifton College is recognised as a charity, and as such receives substantial tax breaks. It was calculated by David Jewell, master of Haileybury, that in 1992 that these savings represent an investment from general taxation of about £1,945 per pupil per year - some £200 a year more than the state invested in the education of a child at primary school [1]. This subsidy has declined after the 2001 abolition of State-funded scholarships (formerly known as "assisted places") to public school by the Labour government. It is estimated that the UK's 1,300 [2] public schools continue to benefit from over £100M in State tax breaks, highlighted by an ongoing campaign by figures such as Fiona Miller [3]. ”

The Union

In 2005, some of the Upper Sixth created a pupil-run newspaper, 'The Union'. The founding editor was Thomas Ingraham (WaH) and his successor was Luke Fear (WaH). The publication became bigger and in 2006, three of the writers for the newspaper (William Hanson, Ashley Coates & George Greenbury) decided to start a podcast: 'The Union Podcast'. The podcast contained sketches and monologues about school life at Clifton and it received much praise. Five audio episodes were produced and all can be found on the school's intranet or on the iTunes Music Store. In the summer of 2007 a video podcast (vodcast) was released to high acclaim. The podcast series has now ended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brookie (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Clifton college logo.png

Image:Clifton college logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

School slang section

I just removed the school slang section for the second time (diff #1, diff #2), which was unsourced. Even if it was properly referenced I believe is trivial and unencyclopaedic. It has no place in this article. Discuss... --Simple Bob (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well - I think it is useful and is an interesting part of the school and its history. It is at worse harmless and is informative. Others have opinions too. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, as an admin you should know better than to add unsourced and trivial content. Clearly we both differ, so let's see what others think. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of User:Brookie are irrelevant here. What is relevant is Wikipedia policy. Reliable sourcing and encyclopaedic style are what is required in any Wikipedia article. As school slang is unlikely to be cited by relaible sources, it has no place in this artcile. If you can come up with relaibel third party sources then perhaps it can be examined for its merits for inclusion, but not a whole a section. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Words like "Head Man" and "Exeat" really have no place. Other words like "Praepostor", "The Close", and "Big side" should be worked into the prose, not a tedious list. Unless the school has a noteworthy tradition of slang, it's better not to have a separate section for it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Old Wykehamists, Old Cliftonians, etc. to become "Alumni of... "?

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• There is a further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 9. Cjc13 (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the false impression given by the above statements the proposed change is not to use "alumni"; it is to rename the category Old Cliftonians to Category:People educated at Clifton College. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomson-Glover conviction

The conviction of the former teacher, in August 2015, who abused his position to site cameras in lavatories etc. had been included in excessive detail of his crimes, in what is, after all, a general article about a distinguished school. I altered this material to make it summarial. It is unacceptable that another editor considered that the abused children, already traumatised to realise that they had been covertly filmed in intimate situations, should be exposed to further indignity by detailing the crime in this article, in the name of "accuracy". Trevor H. (UK) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The material is suitable for inclusion, no question. I would suggest the most appropriate place would be to place it in a 'Controversy' section. Obscurasky (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not reverted the reversion of my contribution - which was aimed at removing a paedophile from the list of Notable Former Teachers. I have instead renamed it "Covert filming" and put the material, in a very abbreviated form, at the foot of the page. Trevor H. (UK) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what you write is an appropriate level of detail. Were it not for the length of the article, I would have suggested removing it entirely, but as it's a long article I don't think it's disproportionate. Out of fairness to the school I have added their spokeswoman's quote about taking measures to avoid a repeat, although purely in terms of length it is of course expanding it. I would certainly agree with you ruthlessly pruning any more detail about the crime. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, nor do we sanitise school articles to suit vested interests. Explaining what was being filmed, without naming victims seems perfectly reasonable.Charles (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there is still a question of what is reasonably significant relative to the overall history of the school, rather than what happens to be in the news currently. My guess is that if some similar scandal had happened 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago, nobody would now be thinking to include it. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding "remove meaningless management bollocks", I'd have thought the reader could have been the judge of that; the BBC article that you linked to records the fact that they said it (at the very end of the video clip). But I have no intention of getting into an editing competition over it. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "bollocks" is a quote or just your expletive, and I'm sure you mean well; indeed, I share your repugnance at censorship per se, and only argue that the specific nature of this detailed material, about real kids still on the roll in this small school, makes our duty of care as adults, towards them, a cause of self-censorship. It's all about damage limitation. And yes, the reader can judge many things, but that doesn't give us cause to include (possibly titillatory, certainly unecessary) detail in the hope the reasonable reader will eschew it.
For this is an article about a small-sized English school. Here, specific innocent schoolboys are having to deal with feeling exposed to public discussion of gratuitous observation of their unwitting private naked behaviour by a criminal paedophile who betrayed their trust over many years. As wikipedians, we are able to prevent some further trauma, or increase it.
We've seen the viral peddling of a video of murdered news reporters in the US this week, characteristic of the present media tendency to explore all the gratuitous skinny on every horrible offence of vile perpetrators against the innocent. This has become a web trend; one that Wikipedia surely should not emulate in an article like this, which is about a small institution, not a discussion in general terms about paedophilia or human sexuality.
Wikipedia has many such general articles, where any amount of detail is entirely pertinent so by all means, let's discuss human sexuality in detail in appropriate articles, where 'specific identifiable people' are not cited, but here, let's remember the definition of prurient is "having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others," and in this case, those others are identifiable children.
I suggest such a demeaning trend on the web could undermine them; I'd use the same yardstick if someone was the victim of rape or abuse. Because we can promulgate every ghastly detail of their humiliation doesn't mean we should, in the name of some kind of truth-seeking. As adults, we have clear duties we need to step up to. These boy's (and maybe, staff members of the school and its guests), must tremble to be aware that police officers have already perused them in "private acts" in toilet areas. This is an unbearable humiliation. Considerations about our right to publish (even derivative material) seems entirely secondary to the victims' right to expect us to promote vigorously their right to privacy and damage limitation. I welcome debate on the matter, but would argue reducing the impact of this invasion of their inner sanctum - salvaging such privacy as we might, after this 16 year perverted exploitation - trumps all other considerations in this specific case. Trevor H. (UK) 02:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor H. (talk • contribs)

I think you are confusing slightly who did and said what. To answer your specific question regarding "bollocks", I had added a quote from the school along the lines that they had done everything possible to avoid a repeat, and then user Charlesdrakew removed it again, adding in the summary box "remove meaningless management bollocks" as he did so, and this is what I was quoting. (See the document history.) Specifically I think that it is appropriate and factual to record the school's response, regardless of whether some people might consider it to have been "management bollocks" or not, and that in any case that was something that the reader could judge. At no point was I using the "reader can judge" argument in favour of including the salacious material itself, for precisely the reasons you mention, although I did reluctantly concede that in a long article it could probably have a brief and minor mention. I would prefer to reinstate the school's response, but as stated I do not want to end up in an editing competition against someone who feels that salacious details should not be censored at any cost regardless of damage caused, but that a factual mention of the school's response should be removed on the grounds that it is "management bollocks". (And for avoidance of doubt, I have no connection with the school, aside from an extremely trivial one that would not give rise to a conflict of interest.) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clifton 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/20080610055129/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/182-06 to http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/182-06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327200754/http://www.redland.org.uk/cgi-bin/page.cgi?20:20:40 to http://www.redland.org.uk/cgi-bin/page.cgi?20:20:40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clifton 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/20071116175325/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379325 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379325
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redland.org.uk/cgi-bin/page.cgi?20%3A20%3A40

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clifton 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/20080721073522/http://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/CollegeSt/extension/oct99/bookreview.pdf to http://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/CollegeSt/extension/oct99/bookreview.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724094326/http://theatrebristol.net/redgrave-theatre to http://theatrebristol.net/redgrave-theatre
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024192032/http://www.oldvic.ac.uk/shows.html to http://www.oldvic.ac.uk/shows.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)