Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:27, 11 January 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New badge

I removed the following from the article:

The new badge has been described by some Old Latymerians as "lacking in character and history" while others described it as "ugly, a great shame that the new headmaster has visited upon the school."

Many Latymerians feel the new badge is the embodiment of "Peter Winter's one man crusade to turn a school richly rooted in tradition and highly regarded place of education into a business, a shameless profit making organisation."

This shouldn't go back unless sources can be provided.

For what it's worth, I don't like the new badge either. -- Earle Martin 09:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as this is the talk box, I offer my opinion as an OL that the new badge is absolutely disgusting, it is more akin to a company logo than the crest of a school that has been around for four hundred years. I would have to say that from what I have seen and heard of Peter Winter, the quotes above sound about right. You are correct that those above do need to be sourced but I'm sure that all you need to do is ask some other OLs that you know and I'm sure you would get quotes along the same lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.103 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am an Old Latymerian and will gladly provide you with a quote or three. One only has to look at Peter Winter's decision to hire a 'Head of Development' to (among other tasks) routinely target parents and, most shockingly, teachers to request money to fund the Latymer Foundation. Desperate letters frequently drop on my doorstep pleading for my spare change. This is both shocking & risible, considering that they are in the process of demolishing the old library to build a new structure, which I can only assume racks up somewhere in the region of several million pounds (much as the recent "Latymer Arts Centre" did).

Considering the shocking poverty that many state schools struggle through in this country, Latymer Upper School is descending alarmingly towards finance glutton; uncontrollably thrashing its networked arms around in the search for new sources of capital.

~ :Leftblank 19th October, 2006

As another OL, I too deeply dislike the new badge and haven't heard much about the new head but nothing good either... I am tempted to ask fellow OLs and I may have contacts with a few teachers too so could ask them... or can I not be bothered. On the otherhand, are we reaching enough OLs to say the new school badge is a bit pants and disliked by us? --Doctormonkey 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The New badge is disgusting. Our entire year created a pettition and got almost the entire school to sign it saying that we prefered the old badge. Peter Winter then attempted to give a whole school detention. When asking teachers what they thought they prefered to say nothing as the obviously valued their jobs too much. --User:A pupil 10:56, 30 November 1006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Being a current pupil who has watched with some amusement the development of this article over the last year or so, i thought i should finally add something to it. I hope my addition is a fair summary of Mr. Winter's time as head, which covers both the arguments in favour of him and against him- it certainly sums up the feelings of the majority of pupils. However i fully expect it to be edited quickly either by whichever memeber of staff is allocated to read through these things these days (there's an Ofsted inspection coming up) or by one of you for being un-encyclopaedic (is that a word?). Anyway, hope this is informative to you OLs and any prospective parents surfing the site, and more accurate that what some of my classmates are coming up with (by which i mean the comment above, which is, as far as i know, a complete lie, with the very small basis of truth which i refer to in my addition (the 2005 mock election); for one thing most teachers actually have been willing to stand up against Mr. Winter on occasion and, while he may be more concerned with 'image' than the education we actually recieve, Winter is certainly not enough of a bad person to give a 'whole school detention'- and nor could he possibly have the power to do so. Oh, and he spelt petition wrong.) 86.144.39.108 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)A. Latymerian (i think it could be said that, most sadly, the fact that i am not willing to disclose my name or even my year is possibly the greatest indictment of Peter Winter).

I know this is also inappropriate (wikipedia may give us a detention!), but I think A. Latymerian deserves a response. I agree with you that your enty is not in the style of an encyclopedia but it is an interesting post, an insider's view. I think that changes (and maybe you should make them) could include a reference to a fear that Winter's defining moment will be the change of badge and loss of the motto. The censorship and democracy-in-action (a blue and black revolution?) would need supporting evidence to enter the encyclopedia but they can remain on the record in the talk section. As a Diggory pupil, I think he was exceptional and so Winter was always going to have a tough time and many of the bigger changes like the conversion to co-education and the revamp of Wood Lane ARE good but he invoked wrath when he made the changes to the motto and coat of arms.

Maybe an internet wizz would like to make an independent chat forum for all of this? --Doctormonkey 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the material added by "A. Latymerian". Your efforts are appreciated, but you really have to provide sources for all that stuff. "Many pupils and teachers, old and new, feel..." and "many felt..." and "even the Head’s most fervent critics grudgingly admit..." just don't cut it. The part about the election could be useful, if you were able to find a reputable source to link to about it, which I kind of doubt you could. -- Earle Martin (class of '98) 00:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We need more latymerian opinions. Get people on this page! Start a bloody facebook group for goodness sake. The NEW BADGE IS AWFUL! Winter had no idea of what the school was about when he came in and he has done irreparable damage to the school. Another arts centre? The prison yard esque patio outside the ABC block? The white 'sail' monstrosity? Cages around the playgrounds? Boring speeches at the end of every term? I remember a prizegiving that I attended where Adwoa Winter fell asleep during her husband's speech. The Diggory boys were a real bunch of lads, but it seems that Winter is turning his generation of Latymerians into artsy pillow biters.

Anon (class of 05)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.189.169.97 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking with the benefit of prior experience, I can assure you that boring speeches at the end of every term are nothing new. -- Earle Martin 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Words can not describe the hatred that I feel towards Winter for what he has done to a school I loved.

Also to any of the staff at latymer, I would like to thank you for pestering myself and my family for donations to the school, I ask if you would allow me to first deal with the incredible amount of debt I am in due to university loans first, before being forced to donate money to pay for Winter's yearly raping of our many buildings? Or is that too much to ask?

Yours sincerely - Old Latymerian 1626

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.216.23 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another current latymerian here to simply back up claims left by all other CL's here. And also to mention that, although i did not sign the above mentioned petition (i was unaware of it and i think there may be a slight exaggeration in that case), i would like to add that my year at the time made a point of not wearing the new badge and often sewing the old one over the top. Also, as my hatred only stretches as far as the head-master - not to the school, i would like to point out that a large number of teachers definately dislike/abhor the head; i have quotations but i will not state them as i like the staff they come from. The description of Mr. Winter turning this school into a business is an absoloutely perfect statement and his belief that he has the right to destroy hundreds of years of tradition by changing the badge is unforgivable. I'm sorry that this serves no real purpose to the changing of this[REDACTED] page, but the temption to rant here (almost) unidentifiably was too great, as anywhere else will be discovered. He admits himself, in the same proud voice that announced the change in the badge and the new way his come up with to piss away our money, that the internet is scoured for any material that shows latymer 'in a bad light'. There is nothing quite like censorship is there? {I've tried using a proxy so that my real IP address would not be displayed here; alas[REDACTED] is too good to be fooled}. My apologies for any bad grammer or spelling (but i was educated at latymer after all). "I will not charm my tongue; i am bound to speak:/My mistress here lies murdered in her bed." 87.80.39.175 XVIIVI

The Law of Arms

Chelseaboy added this to the article:

No approval was obtained from the College of Arms for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the Law of Arms.

I removed this because it's opinion and original research. Unless you can find a reliable legal source to confirm this statement (and whether the new symbol is a logo or a shield), it can't go in the article. -- Earle Martin 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious from looking at the shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article) that it is a shield. The fact that newly formed shields of arms (this is a shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements) used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before display is covered in the article Law of Arms which is referenced in the article; sources are given in that article. The fact that the new Latymer shield was designed by people unconnected with the College of Arms is referenced in the previous sentence to the one deleted by you. The identity of those receiving grants of arms from the College of Arms in recent years is now published online in the College of Arms quarterly newsletters and the Latymer shield is not in them. Please restore the edit, or if you have any other queries, let me know, and I will try my best to help. Cheers. Chelseaboy 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy to restore the edit as it appears clear you know what you're talking about, and that's good enough for me. Best, -- Earle Martin 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this again today and raised the subject on the WikiEN-L mailing list. I think this post from JzG is relevant; the chain of reasoning you're making is fairly long and does in fact fall into the domain of original research; therefore I've removed it once more. I intend to write to Latymer to inquire if, in fact, any authorization was requested. -- Earle Martin 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It says, in part: "So: the user looks at the logo, states that it's a shield, *therefore* it is a shield of arms, *therefore* it requires to be approved, it is not on the list, *therefore* it is not approved, *therefore* it is not pukka. There are enough links in the chain of logic there from source to conclusion that it's reasonable in this case to require some secondary sources. Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a series of facts you looked up? Original research, in my book." . I'm a bit baffled by this polemic. It is not original research to see a picture of a dog and say "That's a dog!". It's a statement of the bleeding obvious! Similarly, the shield of arms is obviously a shield of arms. Here we have just three well-referenced facts strung together: it's a shield of arms (look at it), law of arms requires English shields of arms to be authorised (see references in Law of Arms), this isn't (see College of Arms records of grants of institutional arms, published online; see also reference 5 in the Latymer article, which links to the Latymer account of who was involved and consulted - not including the College of Arms). If stringing together facts is too complicated for Misplaced Pages, it's not going to be much of an encyclopedia is it?! Would you reconsider? Chelseaboy 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of further comment, I've restored the edit but added an additional reference which I hope will please everyone. Cheers. Chelseaboy 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey of pupils

I took this out of the article (I think it's the second time someone mentioned it):

The redesigned logo has also been the source of complaints from the pupils. In a survey conducted shortly after the change, it was found that 94% preferred the previous one.

Unfortunately, unless a reliable source for this statement can be found, it can't stay in. Sorry. -- Earle Martin 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethos

In the ethos section of the article the first line is about its 'comparable ranking' to two all girls schools in the area, first of all why is that in the article at all and secondly, even if it is relevant why is it under ethos?It's not related to the ethos of the school.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmotley (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous Old Lats

According to all of the biographical material I've seen on the web, Jamie Bamber went to St. Paul's, over the river. Did he also attend Latymer at some point? I can find no mention. Sigfpe (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Oldcoatofarms.jpg

The image Image:Oldcoatofarms.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --23:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of introductory year link by automated or semi-automated means

Several times the link to 1624 has been removed from the introduction to this article as "not useful" by bots or others. This is wrong, and I will undo any such edits. It is not appropriate to believe that you know better than all readers of Misplaced Pages articles. There is definite utility to some readers in learning about global context in a given year, and to force them to have to use the search feature instead of simply clicking is patronizing and absurd. Don't do that. -- Earle Martin 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not going to revert, but how does the article about 1624 provide context? All it does is provide a list of events that happened on that year. That doesn't really help. If you want a year article with context, see 1345. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine for a moment that you are someone that has no idea what was going on in 1624. Shouldn't be too hard. Imagine then that you are curious what was happening in the world while Edward Latymer's legacy was being implemented. Again, shouldn't be too hard. What are you going to do? You're going to click on 1624. For example, you may notice that Cardinal Richlieu was alive and active at that point. From there you might read a little about Louis XIII of France, then come back to the Latymer article, and picture them in your head while you read about the founding of the school. This is a tiny example of global context. Historical events do not happen in a vacuum, and our readers should not be discouraged from widening the scope of their reading.

Non-hypothetical example: I spent seven years at this school. When you do that, the year 1624 gets rubbed in your face a lot. It was the first thing I went to read about when I came across this article for the first time. That's my case; there are as many motivations to follow links in articles as there are readers. Removing the link (and similar links in other articles) is assuming that you know better than every single other reader, and that your opinion on "correctness" trumps whatever reason they may have for following a link. So far no editor wishing to remove the link has been able to give a reason beyond "it makes the article worse because I say so". I've given you both a hypothetical reason and a true account why it improves the article so far; please explain how it makes it worse.-- Earle Martin 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Earle, I'm glad you declared your interest there. Just to say that although 1624 may be part of your DNA, in WP, it is just another year. If other readers such as yourself are so fixated by a given year, all you need to do is to type that year into the search box, and hey, presto! There is no need to pollute WP with links to pure trivia for others. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, see Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Blatantly stating that "this is wrong" and you will revert no matter what is not conducive to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages. The correct thing to do is to discuss the matter and then act as according to consensus. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no consensus that year links should be globally removed was demonstrated at the recent RFC. That means that we remain at the status quo, which is editors' judgement. Taking it upon yourself without such consensus to delete all year links everywhere is effectively WP:OWNing the entire site. -- Earle Martin 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've just manually removed the useless link to the year of founding, and replaced it with a relatively more useful (not saying a lot) link. This way, one is assured the article link has greater relevance, and you will no longer be disturbed by bots. And if you don't like that formulation, another better way of providing context to the school's founding would be to say "1624, while James I was on the throne" or "1624, the year before James I died". Ohconfucius (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not pretty but it's useful and I can live with that in the face of this hilariously fierce opposition to a single tiny link. Okay. -- Earle Martin 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You may have drummed up the hilarious opposition by trying to stop the bot carrying out thousands of useful edits, simply to preserve one single tiny link - especially when there's a easy (if ugly) alternative. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely the utility and necessity of those thousands of edits that I am contesting, using this as a case in point. -- Earle Martin 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And it is this case in point that precisely demonstrates the utility and necessity of those thousands of edits. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear.--2008Olympian 06:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The "utility and necessity" has thus far only been rationalized with "I don't like it". No wider consensus has been demonstrated, despite the best efforts of the noisy voices at WT:MOSNUM to claim so. For the reference of anyone reading this conversation, a request for arbitration on the actions of those same noisy voices has just been opened. -- Earle Martin 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Earle, you wouldn't happen to be Canvassing, now, would you? ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The RfC clearly shows consensus that years should only be linked rarely - when they add to the understanding of the article. There is simply no way that the 20 other unrelated event listed in 1624 add anything to the understanding of this article - just look at them: "Alphonso Medez arrives in Massawa"; "The Siege of Breda begins"; "A Tuscan force defeats the Algerians" and 17 other irrelevant facts (not to mention the 20-odd irrelevant births and deaths). I challenge anyone to find a single item (other than the founding itself) that is relevant to this article. If you want to make valuable links in the lead, why not selective? or co-education? - those at least give some further information relevant to the school. If there ever was a case for removal of year links, it's here. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out a couple of times, the idea is to add to the user's understanding of the wider historical context. I have never once stated that 1624 adds to this specific article. -- Earle Martin 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've worked in both the James I and the 1620s in England links to provide the context. I've also done some minor tidying up. I hope that's OK. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting approach :) It has a nice literary feel to it. Unfortunately I would bet you £10 that someone deletes it as irrelevant! I'm going to leave it be, though, we shall see. Cheers. -- Earle Martin 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that the issue was resolved while I was gone :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class school articles
• Unknown-importance school articles
• B-Class London-related articles
• Mid-importance London-related articles