Jump to content

Talk:Eton College/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

School Terminology/Miscellaneous

Ooops. Thanks for picking up my malapropism, Nevilley

You're welcome! :) Nevilley

The term High School is not often used in Britain, the word college is often used torefer to a schooln Britain, my state school was a college (said my fresh-mouthed friend, Minty)re
I think what you mean is that it is not often used in England. "High School" is a common suffix in the names of Scottish secondary schools.--Fergie 11:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not terribly uncommon in England either. -- Necrothesp 13:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

America and England: two countries separated by a common language. --Uncle Ed


Added Tim Gowers. BozMo(talk)


Put a vote for deletion on Old Etonians page since it is a stub and all listed here as well BozMo(talk)


I'm not sure it is wise to say it is the "most famous school in the world." Harvard and Oxford are probably more famous. Rockingbeat '

They are both universities. Duhh. Jooler 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Jooler, a Universities is a kind of school and as Eton and Oxford are both schools (and Oxford is MUCH more famous) that statement in the article is completely false. What you are saying is like "that isn't a fruit, it's a banana!" Where did the idea come from that Universities are not schools?Nbruschi 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
See school, and in particular the regional varieties section. In the UK, Oxford University is never referred to as a school, but I guess that in the US, a similar institution may be. Viewfinder 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, Isn't "most famous" an objective term? Rockingbeat

Objective - yeah. But perhaps you mean subjective. Well anyway the article says "It is probably the most famous school in the world." I see nothing wrong it that. It probably is! The BBC seem to think so http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/432158.stm and a Google search for "the most famous school in the world" turns up referencing Eotn quite frequently, Hogwarts comes a close second. Jooler 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The new material I added on Old Etonians is cut and paste from an article in the Independent - [1] - it's interesting but I'm not sure it can really be used like this. If people think it's worth keeping despite, it could be edited to make it less like plagiarism.

There were a number of large edits of the article on the 7 December 2005[2] by user:PiCo. On the same day there was a 2 page spread in The Independent newspaper (Page 18, and 19) written by Terry Kirby [3]. The layout of the additions is almost identical to that of the Ini's article and a lot of the sentences are lifted strait from the article. The only section head missing is that of "and the rogues" but the text was included. With regrets I am removeing the addition. With a rewrite, I think it would be a useful addition to the article but when it trascribes so much of Terry Kirby words it is not within the spirit or the law of copyright. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Most of the info on old boys is in the separate lists. I don't think this article needs a huge section highlighting who is most notable. What is there suffices in my view. Harro5 21:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

First Line/Terminology

The first line now says that Eton "is an independent school for boys" rather than "is a public school (that is, an independent, fee-charging secondary school) for boys". While the latter was cumbersome, I think it is more informative, and the term "independent school" is not sufficiently widely used to justify its being the main description of Eton. "Public school" is a term much more closely associated with the school, and is more descriptive of it.

However, the earlier edit is not perfect in that being a "public school" is surely something more than simply being independent, fee-charging and secondary. So maybe "public school" should be ditched for the opening (it is rather a difficult term to define, and perhaps not precise enough for encyclopaedic purposes), but mentioned later on in the article (e.g. in an aside to the history section noting the term's origins and contrasting this with its use today).

The first line could then state that Eton "is an independent, fee-charging secondary school for boys". If no-one has any better ideas I'll try and remember to do this in a few days... 

--Raoul2 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Beaks

> Beak: a schoolmaster (teacher) - This isn't Eton specific, is it? We used it at my (non-Eton) schools, and I have seen it in books too. DavidFarmbrough 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd always thought that it was Eton-specific, but the OED refers to it as "Schoolboys' slang.", so I guess it isn't. I don't know if it originated in Eton - the earliest quotation in the OED is referring to an Eton beak - but it is certainly very commonly used at the school, and thus should, I think, remain in the entry. There should definitely be a note stating that this is not Eton-specific, though. I will write something to that effect now.... Raoul2 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We use it at Harrow Oli 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
For heavens' sake, they even use it at St Custard's. (See Nigel Molesworth). --Mpk 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eton Field Game

Where are the full rules of the EFG? in the Eton web there is a pdf and a ppt about EFG but they are for etonionans...there is a full set of the rules for the not initiated in the game?...plz write a little about because it seems to be a really interesting game. Sorry my bad english. - Pablo

>yes i agree

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.87.7.230 (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The link leads to a pdf where the rules are too vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.87.7.191 (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I go to Eton: the basic rules SCORING

A ROUGE is worth 5 points, and is scored when the ball is kicked by the scoring team OFF a defender, and over the line. If touched down by the ATTACKING team, it is a ROUGE. If touched down by the DEFENDING team, the ATTACKERS choose between a Point or a BULLY (explain later)

A GOAL is as it sounds...;) and worth three points.

A CONTACT ROUGE is worth the same as a rouge, and scored if you are in contact with the opposition when the ball crosses the line.

GAMEPLAY

There are 7 players in the BULLY - several 'Corners', 2 'Side Posts', 1 'Post', one B'up, (backup). There are 4 players in the BACKS - 1 'fly', two 'Shorts' and one 'Long'

The rules of GAMEPLAY are: The BULLY must keep together, if one of them kicks the ball and is too far away from the rest of the BULLY, they are 'SNEAKING'. You are not allowed to kick the ball to anyone else on your team directly. The ball must rebound off a member of the other team for it to be able to go to another team member. When GOING ALONG THE LINE, you can not stop the ball.

GOING ALONG THE LINE: This is when you have entered the 3 yard area where rouges are most commonly scored. You must aim to deflect the ball off the defender who is trying to stop you, over the goal line, for it to be a ROUGE.

FERKING: This is when the FLY tries to kick the ball through the BULLY and is illegal.

SNEAKING: When a bully player plays the ball while seperated from the rest of the BULLY

CORNERING: Basically like the offside rule in football etc.

The BULLY is the equivalent of the Scrum in Rugby. One side is bending down, and their heads go into the gaps between the defenders, who are standing up. You nearly always win this way, because of the added strength and stability you have bending down like that.

Getting tired now, hope this helps!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.166.41 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Location

'although geographically, Slough is the closest town (approx 3.5 miles to Windsor as opposed to 1.5 miles to Slough)..' Can someone explain this? I feel I must have missed something obvious, because there is no way on Earth that Eton College is nearly 4 miles from Windsor (as popularly defined, i.e. extending to the bridge). I presume then that there is some more exact definiton? Badgerpatrol 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've altered it- from the college's own site: 'There is no direct access for vehicles over the Thames from Windsor to Eton. Pedestrians can walk across Windsor bridge and up Eton High Street to the College, a distance of about half a mile'. I am guessing that the previous editor was possibly referring to distance by road, rather than across the footbridge from Windsor. Eton College is not 3.5 miles from Windsor, although it may well be 1.5 miles from Slough.Badgerpatrol 15:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove the word 'prestigious' and other such uses of 'peacock language'. Such phrases do not belong to an encyclopaedia, but an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.11.202 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fame

I don't think that the current sentence about fame in the introductory paragraph is accurate. At the moment it reads "Eton is often mentioned alongside Harrow School and Winchester College as one of Britain's three most famous public schools.". Is it really true that people frequently talk about three most famous public schools and list those? I think it is much more reasonable to simply say that Eton "is often described as the most famous school in the world", which was the previous wording. This is particularly true in recent times thanks to the attendance of the princes. This formulation also has advantages of brevity, especially important in the first paragraph. I've changed this once for it to be reverted so I'm setting out my thinking here and will wait a few days for any alternative views before making any futher changes. Raoul2 08:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I´m inclined to agree. Harrow and Winchester do not have as high a profile as Eton outwith the south of England--Fergie 11:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
We'd probably need some sort of newspaper editorial saying as much, or a reputable source. There was a similar debate a while back on Harvard University as while everyone knows no university surpasses it, you can't just talk about a common perception in an encyclopedia. Maybe focus on the quality of the aluni and the history to highlight its importance, as I agree that the article does need to suggest the undeniable significance of Eton. Harro5 08:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
A bit of googling has found something from the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/432158.stm making a similar claim about fame to the one I'd like to see in the article. An article from the Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1514930,00.html) goes even further, stating "It is England's most famous school". I think this is reasonably convincing, so I'll change the paragraph back tomorrow unless there are any objections. Raoul2 11:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Yanksta x 14:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you google Eton as the most famous school, you get a trove of results. International publications form the Daily Mail to People magazine, to Time, refer to Eton as the world's most famous school. Harrow does not enjoy such recognition(although it too is widely known), and comparing Eton's fame to Winchester is actually quite ignorant. Yanksta x 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sulla16 just reverted a sourced statement to an unsourced one, calling it "reverting vandalism". Even if his version could be substantiated as well, I see no improvement to the Eton article since it currently is correct. Huon 10:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The source for the previous version was not removed; I was deceived by the "rv" edit summary. But I still fail to see an improvement to the Eton article in this mention of Harrow and Winchester. Huon 10:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this tussle is going to continue until both Eton and Harrow, both have more neutral phrasing in terms of fame. It seems that here is heated passion on both sides. the current verbage should i hope satisfy both - Beak99 2:05pm GMT

Beak99: I appreciate that you are new to this debate, and I really appreciate you posting on the talk page rather than just editing the page without any rationale. However, I must disagree with you. It is clear that here we have two opposing points of view - one thinks that the claim that Eton is often described as the most famous school is justified and sums up the issue neatly, while the other believes it is more accurate to say that "Eton is often mentioned alongside Harrow School and Winchester College as one of Britain's three most famous public schools. It is considered by some to be the most famous school in the world.". The first POV, though, has been backed up (by me) with evidence. There has been not one single piece of evidence presented to support the claim that people often talk about a top-three-most-famous set of public schools, and that those are Eton, Harrow and Winchester. Your edit is not neutral; it is unjustified and, I believe, incorrect. I also find it a bit odd that your first act on joining Wikipedia is to edit the Eton College, Harrow School and Winchester College pages, wading right into this whole controversy. Raoul2 15:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we incorporate this into the closing statement? - Eton is considered to be one of the most famous schools in the world. It has a long list of well known alumni, including 19 former British Prime Ministers. Mytwocents 16:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
An interesting idea, but I think that in fact one of the most important things about Eton is its fame - that's what makes it unusual, after all - so I definitely think a mention of it should remain in the opening paragraph. Raoul2 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation over opening paragraph

Evening folks. Raoul2 has asked for an informal mediation, as there seems to be a bit of disagreement over the opening paragraph. The mediation page can be found here. Hopefully we can all talk through the issues and get past the stalemate. Is everyone involved up for this mediation? David L Rattigan 20:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the crux of the issue so far is whether the suggestion that Eton, Harrow and Winchester constitute a famous trio has any sources to back it up. Can we agree that the statement needs a source? David L Rattigan 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

A straw poll would also help. From looking at the article history, it seems only one or two people have been replacing the statement about the three schools, where several people have been reverting. Please indicate your view by writing for (the mention of Eton, Harrow, Winchester trio) or against below. David L Rattigan 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Against, since "often described as the most famous school in the world" implies "the most famous in Britain", and since that description has been sourced. I also second Raoul2 in believing the "trio description" to be factually incorrect - at Talk:Winchester College somebody suggested adding Rugby school to the mix, showing the inflation of "most famous". Huon 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against, It's the most famous, by a statute mile. Eton is singularly famous, this has been shown by google search results. Mytwocents 04:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting is Evil. Why are you holding a straw poll when there is already perfect, 100%, consensus on this talkpage? It seems to me that the matter is settled. It's time to simply revert the crude edit warring of the few people who keep inserting their POV without a word of discussion and in defiance of consensus. Eventually that becomes blockable behavior. (I have blocked 207.172.223.214, who has certainly been warned enough, for 24 hours.) And chiming in, just conversationally, from the POV of "the world": I'd be extremely surprised if more than one in a thousand or so of people in my, non-English-speaking, country had heard of Harrow or Winchester. Eton is on a different level, it's a whole mythos. I'm not saying it ought to be, or has any right to be, but I do believe it is. That's obviously my OR, but the claim is sourced, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Just trying to get a bit of clarity is all, as the multiplicity of user names in the discussion and article history made it difficult to see exactly who was saying what. David L Rattigan 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against due to Eton being proven by the BBC article as described by a reputable source as the most famous. And while I agree with Bish that we should now be vigilant in reverting changes to this line (especially with a clear majority supporting "the most famous" claim), but want to thank David Rattigan for facilitating a clear forum for resolving what was an escalating point of conflict. Harro5 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. To claim there is an imaginary trio of top schools is false. The claim that Eton is the most famous school in Britain is undoubtedly correct; I'm not sure about the claim that it's the most famous school in the world, since I'm British and therefore have a biased view, but "one of the most famous schools in the world" is probably fair. The claim that Harrow and Winchester are also more famous than other schools, however, is not correct. While they are undoubtedly well-known and probably most British people have heard of them there are also a number of other British public schools that could make that claim (I made the statement about Rugby - it's got a major sport named after it for heaven's sake! And no, I don't have any connection with Rugby or any of the other schools mentioned). -- Necrothesp 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be any debate here, then. Wikipedia policy and the consensus from the discussion here are in agreement that the unsourced statement doesn't belong. David L Rattigan 08:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but please don't close the poll just yet, as 207.172.223.214 is still blocked[4]. I know he's never used this page, but in case he did want to vote, he hasn't actually had a chance to. Bishonen | talk 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
  • OK - thanks for waiting, here is just a short list of links to prove my point that the two schools should be treated as equally famous. Not to do so is de-facto POV, the point I have been trying to make all along. if you look at my edit, they all acknoledged that Eton is famous and that harrow is famous. Raoul2 has been just as bad as me with the rv's on this, and I don't think 3 supporters makes his case: thanks 207.172.223.214
  • PS. I agree with this comment from Bedders on the harrow discussion page:
  • I hope so, it's time consuming and pointless and all over one sentence! They are all famous, but you can never get a ranking of this fame Bedders 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a response to these comments above. Raoul2 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Er... why was that? I hope nobody minds, but I've moved down Raoul2's and Huon's posts, they're below. It's just incredibly difficult to make sense of a talkpage that's not chronological north to south. Raoul2, if I've misrepresented your intentions by moving your post, I apologize, and do please move it back. (I presume Huon merely put his below yours to avoid making it even harder to follow the dialogue.) My entire talkpage experience tells me, though, that it's a bad idea to have a reply above the post to which it replies. Apropos of talkpage readability, 207, it would help a lot if you signed your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~ . That will convert automagically to your username (in your case, your IP) and the time and date. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC).
I just felt that my response wasn't part of the straw poll, so I didn't want to put it in there. But your solution is a good one, and easier to understand, so thanks for that. Raoul2 10:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to 207

I'd just like to reply to comments made by 207.172.223.214 above in response to the Straw Poll. Firstly, I have reverted the Eton College page six times to 207's 12, so it is just not true to say that I have been "just as bad" as 207 on this issue. In addition, my reverts were made after initiating a discussion on the talk page and finding complete consensus in support of my view, while 207's were made in direct opposition to this.

Secondly, the evidence that 207 has supplied in support of his "trio description" is highly unsatisfactory:

  • http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/education/schools.html - unlike all but one of the sources, this does at least contain the claim that "The most famous public schools are Eton, Harrow and Winchester". It is a very weird source, but admittedly does back up the claim in question.
  • http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1864651,00.html - this does not back up the claim. It does not mention the trio in question together. The Times chooses to single out Eton and Harrow from a list of fifty schools, perhaps implying that they are the most famous. However, no-one has disputed that both Eton and Harrow are famous, so this source is completely irrelevant.
  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033169/usercomments - another odd source. One comment identifies the "leading" (NB: not famous) public schools as "Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Shrewsbury" - not the trio in question. Another commenter writes "[H]he revolutionised not only school discipline but also curriculum in one of England's oldest and most famous Public Schools. From Rugby the reforms spread out to Eton, to Harrow and to Winchester." This suggests not a trio of Eton, Harrow and Winchester but instead implies four most famous schools.
  • http://www.fifa.com/en/history/history/0,1283,1,00.html - this is the worse source of all. Harrow is mentioned twice, once with Charterhouse, Westminster and Eton as a school where games that "depended on the players' dribbling virtuosity than the robust energy required in a scrum" developed - nothing at all do with fame. The second mention is with Eton and Winchester, but again this grouping is based not on anything with any connection to fame, but instead on the fact that these schools "gave preference to kicking the ball and carrying it was forbidden".
  • http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-200236 - this is the best source as it says "Among the most famous public schools for boys are Eton (founded in 1440), Winchester (1380), and Harrow (1611)." and is from a reliable authority.
  • http://www.idp.com/16aiecpapers/program/wednesday/issues11/Menachery_p.pdf - all that is said here is that Eton and Harrow are "famous Public schools of UK" (sic). Not only does this say nothing about 207's point (no-one has denied that Harrow is a famous public school, and I certainly would not do so), the article is so terribly written that it seems foolish to ascribe much weight to the opinions of the author.
  • http://www.zetterberg.org/Books/b64_almanac/b61_4.htm - again, all this source does is identify Eton and Harrow is famous public schools, which is irrelevant.

Thus of 207.172.223.214's seven sources, only two actually confirm his point. I think that this has been a deliberate attempt on 207's part to mislead Wikipedians who understandably don't have the time or inclination to look closely at the links he provides into thinking that his view has much more support than it in fact does. Raoul2 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Raoul2's statements. These seven links do not show widespread use of the "famous trio". The sixth of the sources even misquotes a stetement [5] (wrongly) attributed to Wellington which originally mentions Eton alone. While searching on my own, I even found a reference claiming Harrow to be the "second most famous school" [6] - guess who's number one. If we were to make a list of famous schools in Britain, they would clearly all belong, but for the Eton article, there is no need to mention that there are other schools which are almost, but not quite, as famous. Besides, if we were to mention other famous schools, these links also show that it is impossible to draw a clear line where to stop. I feel like the Spanish Inquisiton: "Our most famous school is Eton! ... And Harrow! Yes, our two most famous schools are Eton and Harrow! ... And Winchester! Yes, our three most famous schools are..." Yours, Huon 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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 [3]. This subsidy has declined after the 2001 abolition of State-funded scholarships (formerly known as "assisted places") to public school by the Labour government. However, no child attended Eton on this scheme, meaning that the actual level of state assistance to the school has always been lower.

I'm a bit confused by this paragraph. As far as I can tell, the £1,945 is supposedly calculated based on the amount of money that Eton would have to pay in tax were it not a charity. Therefore, I don't get the relevance of the abolition of the assisted places. Assisted places wasn't taken in to account in the £1,945 as far as I can tell. Similarly, why the actual level of state assitance was lower is confusing. Also was the £1,945 for Eton exclusively (other public/private/independent schools may be higher or lower) or an overall figure? Nil Einne 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation closed

I am closing the mediation now, as you are doing great without the need for a mediator, and there doesn't appear to have been any trouble for a few days. Cheers. David L Rattigan 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


"It is one of the most famous schools in the world."

If this statement were foolish or incorrect or just someone's inept personal opinion, inserting "considered to be" would not make it right. There is such a thing as Witless Caution. --Wetman 07:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point? Yanksta x 10:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You would have a point if the statement weren't so obviously true. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's important even if it is true. Framed0000 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly no support in this section, apart from Yangsta for the POV Beak99 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Beak99 2/26/07

Beak99, you've violated the 3RR and I'm afraid I've reported you (see WP:AN3). Shall we perhaps discuss a compromise edit? It seems to me that if this is the discussion you are referring to in your edit summaries then there is insufficient discussion to definitively establish a consensus either way. If there is a more involved debate archived somewhere, please point me towards it. Aha- in fact, I didn't have to look far! My understanding from the above [7] is that the strong consensus was to form a wording similar to "Eton College is often described as the most famous school in the world", in which case Beak99 is in the wrong (there's no excuse for violating the 3RR in this context anyway, however). Am I correct in thinking that this was the outcome of the mediation and poll above? Badgerpatrol 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your understanding of the mediation is correct. Raoul2 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no it is not. The poll above was whether or not to include the references to the other schools and not to remove the 'most famous' bit. Nbruschi 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My 2¢'s worth: The statement "Eton is the world's most famous school" is subjective and in many ways incorrect. Example: Most of my French Canadian compatriotes have never heard of it (have you heard of Collège Brébeuf?), most of my Japanese colleagues haven't heard of it (have you heard of Todai or Tsukuba universities?), my Chinese ex-girlfriend (no slouch, a PhD candidate in digital signal processing at Chiba University) hasn't heard of it (have you heard of Beida?). It's more properly "the most famous school in England" or the UK, or stetching it to the limit, in the Commonwealth though I doubt it's that famous to most the one billion Indians. In any case, leaving it as it is is partisan and POV. Vincent 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Agree per Vfp15. Fame is a hard thing to measure and neither references use quantitative means to measure the famousness of Eton. The two articles, not exactly reputable studies of academic institutions, mention Eton's fame in passing -- as a superlative -- the same way people might refer to Coca Cola as the best soft drink however impossible it would be verify that assertion. I would completely agree with keeping the statement if there was some survey asking people to identify whether or not they were aware of famous schools and Eton came in first, but the statement above definitely lends itself to NPOV issues. I echo the call to remove it. 72.189.38.173 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence worth: in a 1973 address to the school assembly, headmaster Michael William McCrum made the claim that "we are the world's best known school". However, until someone invents a time machine which allows Wikipedians to travel back in time to that assembly, the claim is unverifiable, and I cannot find the claim in writing. Assuming that schools that are in fact parts of universities, e.g. Harvard Business School, are excluded, McCrum's claim was probably true, both then and now. I agree that most people have not heard of it, but millions or even hundreds of millions of people, seem to be fascinated by the Royal Family - especially those of Diana, Princess of Wales and her children, and follow their lives closely. Incidents, especially negative incidents, involving Eton are lapped up by the British popular press. But unless someone can link the claim to a reliable source or study, I do not think that I would support it here. Viewfinder 08:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that even if we could verify that he made that claim it wouldn't be the kind of reference we need. Something along the lines of a statistical survey or an article in an educational journal would be in order. Are we in favor of removing the statement or just sticking with the adapted one? Nbruschi 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Common sense

Idiots. If the school is famous then it doesn't need to be stated, if it's not, then it's a lie.

Most Famous what?

I read through the two references given and neither says that Eton is the most famous school in the world; the second one says that Eton is the most famous school in England and that it is the most famous public school in the world. I would be willing to accept qualifying the statement and adding the word "public" to the introduction, but otherwise there would be POV issues. It is not really possible to make a claim that anything is the most famous anything in the world unless you can bring up quantifiable data to prove it (e.g. Due to its high number of sales and market share, Coke is the most famous soft drink in the world). Furthermore, no one can claim that Eton is more famous than Harvard or Oxford University. Therefore, the least we can do it put this statement in to better and more accurate context. Nbruschi 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is covered above; Oxford and Harvard are not schools. They are universities. Eton is a high school/secondary school, and is historically considered to be the most famous worldwide. Covers on Time and People? Centuries of literature? Yanksta x 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


<>

For your consideration from Merriam Webster, Yanksta:

--- Main Entry: school 1: an organization that provides instruction: as a: an institution for the teaching of children b: college, university c (1): a group of scholars and teachers pursuing knowledge together that with similar groups constituted a medieval university (2): one of the four faculties of a medieval university (3): an institution for specialized higher education often associated with a university <the school of engineering> d: an establishment offering specialized instruction <a secretarial school> <driving schools> ---

We absolutely have to clarify this currently false statement. The article cited says Eton is the "most famous public school." I must insert the word "public" or else the statement is simply not factual; the references do not support such a claim and as Harvard and Oxford are "schools," it is completely false (I only found out about this place after stumbling onto the article). I would be willing to compromise with "most famous secondary school," but the statement absolutely must be qualified. An unqualified statement could not be used by any school, Harvard and Oxford included.

Nbruschi 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does Eton matter? Why does it have an encyclopedia article?

I have restored the statements about the significance of Eton to the introduction. This is an encyclopedia article so its main purpose is to explain the significance of the subject matter. The coverage of Eton's role in British society needs major expansion, not elimination. (There was a major article about it in Time Magazine a few weeks ago is anyone would like a source to help them make the effort.) Without this material the article is weak and plodding, with an overemphasis on trivia. Chicheley 10:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Old Etonians

I wonder whether Francis Urquhart of House of Cards fame is an OE? I say this becuase he is seen wearing what I beleive to be an Old Etonian tie on a number of occasions. I am not from the UK, and I certainly did not attend Eton, so I may be mistaken. Perhaps someone could investigate (the tie in question is either Black or Navy, with the distinctive light blue Eton blue in a diagonal stripe).

Ham21 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology and slang

This has been sitting here with a sources tag but no sign of it getting sourced. I have removed it since it also fails WP:V which is policy. It is an internal matter and of doubtful encyclopaedic value. Those terms that get independently sourced can go back. BlueValour 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

They can all be independently sourced via the literature published by the school, as well as numerous books about Eton, such as those by Tim Card. I'm not sure how to cite the internal pamphlets, which are not supposed to be publicly released. They are all right through. Yanksta x 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If the only sourcing is internal publications then they fail WP:V and must be excluded. I will leave them in for a few days to allow you to source them but I intend to remove those that do not get sourced. BlueValour 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There are pamphlets published by the school, as well as books and magazines regarding Eton. I'm not sure how to cite them, though, Yanksta x 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Guidance on citing books/pamphlets is at Template:Cite book. BlueValour 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Slang Section

Someone has seen to mention two of the school "alternative" magazines without bothering to mention to official magazine, the chronicle. I don't know how to add a section, but if anyone else can put this in it should go something like: The Chronicle is the official school magazine, and is also the longest running school publication. It is edited by boys at the school (although liable to censorship) and thus has a tradition of satirising and attacking school policies, as well as chronicling recent events. 195.195.166.31 10:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Please review. Jpaulm 14:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New section is POV, as well as factually incorrect. Will change. 195.195.166.31 09:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed the thing about "stick-ups." First, I don't think the thing about them having been recently devalued is particularly relevant, and the campaign to restore them to their previous position was in fact started in the Chronicle. Also, why is there so much POV stuff about the magazines? They should be taken out of the slang section and put in the school magazines section, along with the other school magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.166.31 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

number of boys

At present there are 1305 etonians not 1290.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.166.31 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality and pederasty at Eton

Since sexual relations between students as well as between students and staff, were commonplace in earlier times at Eton as well as at all other English public schools, I do nor see what purpose it serves to have such historical material deleted. As long as we properly source any discussions of such events they clearly belong in the article and illuminate an important (if hidden) aspect of its history. As it is this article reads a lot like a sales prospectus, which is not something to aim for in an encyclopaedia entry. Haiduc 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I object to the inclusion of some of the material. Whether or not one of Eton's many headmasters was at some point convicted of buggery does not enrich the Eton article, and a mention by one OE of homoseuality does not indicate its widespread presence. The mention of a "debate" about Etonian sexuality does not really exist. Googling homosexuality and Eton shows no widespread inclinations of that sort; I cannot see why or how speculation regarding homosexuality is useful to the article if not defamatory (considering today's somewhat anti-homosexual culture). I am removing it; if it is truly an integral facet of the school or can be sourced to actually show it as significant at Eton, than that can be cited. Yanksta x 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that erecting artificial hurdles to accommodate the preference of this or that editor is the best way to go about developing this or any article. The material reflects a culture of male love in English public schools that has been amply documented. I do not think it is particularly POV to purify this article of all material that does not conform to modern puritanical mores.
    • Naturally I have reinstated the material. If you have problems with particular aspects I would be happy to discuss it here and alter the article on the basis of previously established consensus. Though the text at present does not require further citations to establish its validity I expect that in due course we may be able to come up with more material, which we would do well to post. Same sex relations in England in the boys' schools seem to have been practically universal, praised by some and blamed by others. Haiduc 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text I deleted from the article. It appears to be a good-faith edit with an attempt at balance. But does it do more than serve as a way to tar Eton with a buggery charge? We can discuss it here to see if it should be included.

In 1541, Nicholas Udall, Headmaster of Eton College, was the first to be charged for violation of the Buggery Act 1533 alone, having confessed to pederasty with a pupil.[8] In his case a death sentence was commuted to imprisonment, and he was released in less than one year. On conviction, he had been dismissed by Eton, but in 1554 he became headmaster of Westminster School. Amorous relations between students or between staff and students have been held by some to be rare or non-existent, and by others to be common, if not universal. According to radio broadcaster Lionel Fielden, an Old Etonian, "When I was at Eton, homosexuality was not only common, it was a general rule."[1]

Mytwocents 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to lie more in the way the material is viewed than in the material itself. One editor refers to these historical facts as "charges." Another calls them "defamatory." Let's get a grip here, gents. This is history. It is by its very nature neutral. How you see it, or how I see it, is not neutral. But let's be careful and not project those points of view on the material.
It is not our concern how readers may react to this article if we include this material. Some will be put off by the discussion of condemned practices, some will be grateful that we are being honest, others will not give a damn either way, after all what difference does it make in 2006 what happened five hundred years ago? But that is not to say that we are going to paper over history, or only publish here laudatory material as if we were out to sell Eton to the rubes. Haiduc 22:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This material should be included as it is referenced, and directly related to the topic. The main change I would make would be to remove the line, "Amorous relations between students or between staff and students have been held by some to be rare or non-existent, and by others to be common, if not universal," as this is an ambiguous statement without examples to support. The Udall example does warrant inclusion as he was headmaster when charged and convicted, but can we confirm with citations whether the relations occurred with Eton students? 23:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Some cites:
  1. In 1541 he was accused of complicity in the theft of silver images and other plate belonging to the college; he was summoned before the Privy Council, where he confessed, instead, that he had committed a “heinous offence” with one of his pupils.
  2. Then in March 1541, less than a year after Hungerford's death, Udall admitted to having committed buggery with two of his male pupils.
I think it would be a stretch to claim that they were his pupils but they were not Etonians. No contest on deleting the phrase you indicated. Haiduc 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
But, so far, the citations that are being used do not prove there is homosexuality or pedastry at Eton. Eton existed 400 years ago, 400 years ago an Eton headmaster confessed to “heinous offence” with one of his pupils. Or so the story goes. I have to ask how this is notable to Eton or part of it's history? The statement says something about Udall, but Eton was an innocent party here. I think this is an attempt at guilt by association. The fact that he was at Eton is beside the point. He could have commited his crime anywhere he had access to young boys. It is basically salacious tabloid trivia and has no place in a wiki article. Mytwocents 07:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a court of law, and no one is trying to prove guilt or innocence. Relations between students, and with teachers at Eton and all other English boarding schools are a staple of historical lore. Try Sodom on the Thames: Sex, Love, and Scandal in Wilde Times by Morris B. Kaplan. Haiduc 14:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reworked the passage in conformance with suggestions presented here. I have removed the unsourced sentence, and I have added another very significant incident, involving house master Cory.

In 1541, Nicholas Udall, Headmaster of Eton College, was the first to be charged for violation of the Buggery Act 1533 alone, having confessed to pederasty with a pupil.[9] In his case a death sentence was commuted to imprisonment, and he was released in less than one year. On conviction, he had been dismissed by Eton, but in 1554 he became headmaster of Westminster School.

In another such incident, William Johnson Cory, renowned house master and Uranian poet, resigned from his position in 1872 under a cloud of suspicion for improper relations with boys, to one of whom he had dedicated Ionica, a book of pederastic poetry.[2] According to radio broadcaster Lionel Fielden, an Old Etonian, "When I was at Eton, homosexuality was not only common, it was a general rule."[3] Haiduc 04:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, what relevance does a headmaster's 1541 buggery charge have to do with Eton? And I daresay there were, in Eton's 600-year odd history, homosexual teachers and headmasters. However, isolated incidents, especially Udall's prison history, seem more of a guilt by association attempt. Yanksta x 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the citations meet Wiki verification. A statement from Lionel Fielden isn't going to convince me there is rampant homosexuality at Eton. But that is the POV that is being inserted with the addition of this paragraph. The way I read it, there has been rampant homosexuality and pedophilia at Eton for the past 500 years, more so than at other comparable British schools. Enough so that it warrants mention here. To me this is tabloid fodder. Any grouping of people, such as a neighborhood, military unit or school, ect. if it has a long enough history or large enough numbers, will have a certain number of pedophiles, traitors, murderers, thieves, womanizers, weirdos, stalkers, you name it. It is not notable that Eton may have had more or less pedophiles and homosexuals in it's past, than any other school. I don't think any of the statements , in the above paragraph are notable enough to be in an encyclopedia article. Mytwocents 19:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To call the culture of same-sex relations at English public schools "not notable" is going to be a little hard to defend. In the first place it is part of the historical record and involves individuals of historical importance. In the second place, a certain amount of scholarly attention has already been given to this topic, though admittedly not as much as many other aspects of school life since, as we well know, research on matters involving same-sex relations were impossible for a long time, and now are only difficult, unless of course you are doing research on same sex relations involving minors, which is still well-nigh impossible. But lo and behold there are some souls brave enough to publish even such work, and under their own names, so the least we can do is acknowledge their scholarship and note it here accordingly.
    • As a further argument, I will remind you that this culture of same-sex relations in an environment informed by Greek philosophy was at the root of the homosexual rights movement that started with John Addington Symonds, Walter Pater and Oscar Wilde, and which eventually grew into the repeal of the anti-sodomy laws and the integration of same-sex relations into western culture. It involved many other schools (see Harrow school for example) as well as Oxford and Cambridge. It even grew to influence the cold war through the "Homintern".
    • So, quite the opposite from being non-notable, it is quite central to the development of Victorian age as well as of the modern world. Haiduc 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanded paragraph on pederasty

In addition to my response above, which is amplified by the following material, please note the further addition of Oscar Browning to the roster of masters in love relationships with their pupils, in the Victorian pederastic tradition of course.

In 1541, Nicholas Udall, Headmaster of Eton College, was the first to be charged for violation of the Buggery Act 1533 alone, having confessed to pederasty with a pupil.[10] In his case a death sentence was commuted to imprisonment, and he was released in less than one year. On conviction, he had been dismissed by Eton, but in 1554 he became headmaster of Westminster School. In another such incident, William Johnson Cory, renowned house master and Uranian poet, resigned from his position in 1872 under a cloud of suspicion for improper relations with boys, to one of whom he had dedicated Ionica, a book of pederastic poetry.[4] He was shortly followed by another master, Oscar Browning, who was dismissed in 1875 over his "overly amorous"[5] (but purportedly chaste) relationship with a pupil, George Curzon.[6][7] More recently, according to radio broadcaster Lionel Fielden, an Old Etonian, "When I was at Eton, homosexuality was not only common, it was a general rule."[8] Haiduc 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Why don't we list all the Eton teachers who liked fishing? Or perhaps all ardent translators of Latin literature? What do random assertions of pederasty to do enrich the Eton article? Why do you insist on inderting pederastic material everywhere? Yanksta x 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And the introduction years of indoor plumbing, wiring for electricity, the automobile. Really, Eton has been around a long time, it's seen a lot of innovation come to it's campus and I'm sure a lot of scandal too, on occasion. It is not necessary or NPOV to include such trivia in a Wikipedia article. Mytwocents 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Having reviewed Haiduc's edits after reading Mytwocents' comments, I'm seeing a distrubing trend of adding one-off references that someone or something may be involved with homosexuality or paedophilia. I oppose introducing this paragraph as it seems to be part of a larger WP:POINT that Haiduc wants to make rather than a quality edit to an encyclopedia. With my change of thoughts, I think that makes this a consensus. Harro5 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do I "insist on inserting pederastic material everywhere"? A good question, fairly asked. I could say much, but I'll try to be brief. Generally speaking, pederasty is an important part of human history, whether noble or ignoble. It is extensively researched and deserves to be documented.
Why here? Eton played a role in the flowering of pederastic pedagogy in Victorian England, a current of thought that began with the Greeks and was reborn in the Renaissance with Ficino and his likes. Its history there is inseparable from the Oxbridge pederastic and homosexual circles inspired by Pater and Wilde, and it is inseparable from the Uranian movement, which is the foundation of the re-entry of same-sex relations into civilized society. It is the best of teachers loving intelligent pupils who become influential men.
And yet you would have us believe that is not notable, that reporting on histiorical studies of same-sex relations is a kind of defamation, and you ask me why I speak about these things. The implication of course is that we are not supposed to speak of these things. Your question provides the answer - these are hidden things that are poorly documented, suppressed and prone to misrepresentation, thus in need of curating. And since pederasty happens to be one of my fields of study, I specialize in throwing a light on it.
As for Harr's comment, one of the things I am doing at the moment is to document pederasty in the English schools, which means that as I go through source materials and I encounter notable incidents I post them in their respective places. The activity may seem randomized and as if I making a point, but you misread my actions. I am gathering information and installing it where it belongs. If you have studied my edits you will see that I have also done quite a bit of work on the Greek and Cretan pederasty pages, as I encountered some very interesting and valuable sources which throw a new light onto the origins of the tradition. What point do you imagine I am making with that?! Just because I am a specialist does not mean that I have an axe to grind, nor does it mean that I am a proponent of wherof I write. The last thing I would want is to have my sixteen year old son picked up in a gay bar in London. Let's not succumb to simplistic conclusions. Haiduc 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

meaning of "king's scholar"

I wrote an article about eton in Hebrew wikipedia. I'm not sure how to translate "scholar" in "king's scholar".

Is it a "learned person", a "student", or a "student on scholarship"? 132.72.45.187 10:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See the Overview section. To be awarded a king's scholarship you need to pass a special examination. Viewfinder 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a "student on scholarship". He "belongs to the king," though, even if there is a queen. As in, the king is supposed to take an interest in the scholars (though nto individually of course.) Fuzzibloke (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious looking edit

Please could someone with more up to date knowledge than I have, please check this edit? It may be OK, but editor has a vandal record. Thanks. Viewfinder 20:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That editor should be correct unless it is obviously vandalism. Yanksta x 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jargon section removal

This section unambiguously breaches the wikipedia policy against dictionaries (found here: WP:NOT#DICT). Also 'slang' sections have been removed from every other school, college, and university page I've seen. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 129.170.246.244 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this material should have been removed. I think that a list of the many terms that are specific to Eton College is of interest in its own right, and contributes to general knowledge about the nature of the school. Any other comments? Viewfinder 08:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of importance considering Eton's mythos and position in public perception. Necessary to convey the Etonness of Eton. I intepret WP:NOTDICT as prohibiting articles which are definitions or lists rather than articles, as opposed to any definition or listing. Otherwise every opening paragraph would be in violation (considering its position on intros...) The list here serves to better explain the topic at hand. Yanksta x 13:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The stuff on this page has to go.

Its always hard for loyal contributors to say goodbye to slang sections but they are simply against wiki policy, give little to the understanding of the subject matter, add emphasis to unimportant elements, and are easily subjected to abuse. I could understand defining terms as they are used in context (e.g. The Headmaster, the ranking member of the faculty,...) but none of the 40 terms clarify anything in the article. WP:NOT#DICT is clearly violated here; while it prevents definition-only entries it also prohibits "Lists of such definitions" and more importantly "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides." This is a resolved issue in wikipedia. Introductory summations are specifically encouraged in wiki policy while this is specifically discouraged.

More importantly this section is downright unencyclopedic. The Jargon section takes up half of the article and contributes very little to anyone not involved with the school (much like inside jokes). The section might escape scrutiny if it was only a few select terms that were defined, but even if it were cut down from its gigantic present size there would still be absolutely no precedent to keep it on the page. Furthermore, these sections are highly unverifiable and border on banned original research (although this one vaguely references a book).

I have been involved with slang disputes (on both sides of the issue) on other pages including St. Paul's School (Concord, New Hampshire), Phillips Exeter Academy, Avon Old Farms, and The Albany Academy. I know that it's painful to see it deleted but trust me it makes the page more encyclopedic and it's gonna happen anyway. Let's just save us all the aggravation of a long drawn out process and let it go. This looks like a pretty clear-cut case but I'd like to hear what you guys have to say. Nbruschi 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with the above contributor, and I begin by declaring my qualification: I was a pupil at Eton College between 1970 and 1975. Correct me if I am wrong, Nbruschi, but according to your user page you are from the USA and have therefore probably never been near Eton. I also find the dictatorial style of much of your comment to be unhelpful, although you mitigate this by adding "I'd like to hear what you guys have to say", so please read on carefully.
I do not think the section contravenes WP:NOT because it is not there for its own sake. It has been up for a long time, and contributes much information about the school that is not solely of interest to insiders. Also, the fact that there are so many such terms, and their use continues, is a good illustration of the character of the school. For example, "Pop" (school prefects) are a core feature of the school; deleting the section would remove this information. I reject the claim that the section is "downright unencyclopedic" and unverifiable. A reference is provided, and that reference provides a very similar list. The terms listed are frequently mentioned in published material about Eton. Personally, I see no case even for cutting the section down to size; that would cut out much interesting information.
For as long as I have been on Wikipedia there has been a List of ethnic slurs. If that does not contravene WP:NOT#DICT, then surely neither does the section here.
Viewfinder 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Seconded keep. I do have something of an issue with this apparent WP:NOTDICT inquisition which has randomly appeared. Precedent shows that lists, where used to shoe information in an article, rather than as an article, are used frequently. There are far more obvious lists of people/slang/etc. you could attack. It's going to go anyway? Hmm. Yanksta x 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<>

Viewfinder, I'm sorry if you found my comments abrasive, but I do have to explain the situation and my rationale in order to make a case, don't I? Please assume my good faith as I assume yours. The fact that you went to Eton shows potential bias (and perhaps a feeling of ownership you have over this article) while the fact that I am from the United States (and did not go to Eton) makes me a neutral observer in this discussion. You say WP:NOT was not violated by the jargon list because it "contributes much information about the school" however the informational quality has nothing to do with the breaking of wiki policies against slang dictionaries. In any event, this policy shows that it is still forbidden: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.

You say that the prefects are an important part of the school and so are the locations of the restrooms but there isn't a separate section for that. If some of the stuff in that section is noteworthy, why not include them in the body of the article and not in a slang section? When I read the article for the first time, the jargon section did not clarify any points of uncertainty and instead served as an endless dump of random and relatively unimportant information.

As interesting as the list of ethnic slurs is to consider, the plight of other jargon sections on school pages is much more applicable to the current situation. Maybe admins have already reviewed it and found it acceptable; peer review here might also help. Please consider looking at the other pages I mentioned: Princeton University's 'neologism' problem is another example. For all I know there could be more jargon violations out there, but the precedent is to remove these sections. Mere sentiment, loose interpretations of policy without precedence, and length of the violation are not compelling reasons to keep the section. Is there anyone else who isn't from Eton with an opinion on this matter? Nbruschi 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<>

The fact that I have been to Eton should not make me biased either way, and I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that nobody owns any of its articles. But it does give me an appreciation of the relevance of these terms to the article. I cannot see how the section violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, can you be specific about which clause(s) are violated? As for precedent, these terms are certainly not 'neologisms'; some of them have been used by Etonians for centuries.

Should my view clearly become a minority view in this discussion, then I will have to accept changes, regardless of whether or not my opponents are Etonians. But if the section must be removed, please can its contents be redistributed rather than deleted, because I think that they are of sufficient relevance and interest.

The policies you cite are guidelines, not laws to be mercilessly enforced without exception. The List of ethnic slurs and similar lists are surely slang dictionaries, yet they have survived, and rightly so because the terms listed are, for better or worse, in colloquial use. But if you persist with your position here, you should logically list these lists for deletion. Viewfinder 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On looking at the section again, I think that there may be a case for expanding it into a more general section, from whose heading the word "slang" could be removed, so that the section could include specific features of Eton which are not known by Eton specific terms (not that I can think of many). Critics of the section in its present form might like to expand on this suggestion. But I see no case for an article about Eton that does not mention "Pop"; this is one of several features which work in a very Eton-specific manner that goes beyond the unique terminologies. Viewfinder 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<>

The policies I cite are not mere guidelines but "official policy." These policies govern wikipedia and thus are to be followed. I went to The Albany Academy and there was a huge jargon section on its page. When faced with the undeniable truth of the violation, we incorporated the important things (like Prefects-- we have 'em too) into the article and left all the crap out. You can't possibly tell me that what you guys happen to term roll call (Absence), or your teacher (Beak), or how you shorten the word division (Div), or a popular place to meet (Burning Bush), or what you call a term (half) adds anything to the understanding of Eton College as an establishment. That stuff might be fun for students to look at on the school's website, but it has no place in an encyclopedia entry. St. Paul's, The Albany Academy, and Exeter have been around for a while as well and many terms they had on their pages are rooted in their rich histories (St. Paul even has external refrences for all of their jargon). However, those sections simply had no place in the articles and they were justly removed.

Let's Compromise: If you find anything mentioned in the slang section worthwhile, please incorporate it into the body of text (I would, but it seems like you have a better idea of what is an isn't important from the school's perspective). We can then trim all of this fat, dump the slang section, and bring the article into line with the rules. That would satisfy everyone right? Dealing with the merits of the information is one thing, but regardless the section really has to go. What do you say? Nbruschi 01:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<>

I still think the section works well and is informative, but it can be deleted and relevant content redistributed if the consensus emerges otherwise. That bad homework is referred to housemasters is worth mentioning, so is the Eton specific term for this: "rip". Another example: what happens to Etonians who are late for school ("Tardy Book") is also of general interest and should be retained. Imo there is very little "fat". You will find the terms "beak" and "half" here too. Still, I note that the section has been tagged. Let us see what others have to say. Viewfinder 07:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is long because it is not merely a list; it provides interesting information about the items it lists. I remain of the view that we should keep it that way. The "slang" terms are very widely used within the school, by both pupils and authorities; indeed, some of them may have been used by Eton for longer than the USA has existed. Please do not let's remove them from Wikipedia. Viewfinder 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


REMOVE: The issue is not with the content necessarily, it is with the format. A list of jargon is flat unacceptable. Open and shut, WP:NOT. 129.170.247.80 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to WP:NOT#DICT, section 3. Is this really an open and shut case under this section? It is far more than a mere list of jargon. Viewfinder 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Having re-read the article, I can identify room for structural improvement. Unless there are any other volunteers with more recent experience of the school, I will undertake this. Suggestions are welcome, but comments like "flat unacceptable" and "open and shut" are totalitarian in nature and generally not conducive to constructive discussion. Viewfinder 12:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleting the section without attempting to respond to the above defence of the section was even more unhelpful. Still, there was a majority against it, so I have not put it back in its former form - instead I have redistributesd most of its contents among other and new sections, more or less per the suggested compromise by Nbruschi, and generally restructured and added to the article. I hope this satisfies its critics. But it is some time since I last set foot on Eton; so some of my contribution may be out of date. Please can other editors correct this where appropriate. Thanks. Viewfinder 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<>

I would like to commend Viewfinder for bringing this article into compliance by removing and redistributing the jargon section. The work now will be in consolidating it and trying to remove any lingering bullet points. Good job all around. Nbruschi 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment. Indeed, there is further work to be done on he article. It would be particularly good to see some serious involvement from a current Eton insider. Personally, I like bullet points because I find them to be reader friendly, and I know of no Wikipedia policy that discourages them, but others diagree then I will not contest their removal from the article. Viewfinder 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the bullet points aren't that bad, I just think we could tighten some stuff up. The "School Terms" section bullets could be consolidated into a sentence or two in my opinion, but that's really no big deal. The bulk of the work is already done and for that we have you to thank. Nbruschi 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

future British monarch?

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Princes William and Harry of Wales are the only children of a future British monarch ever to have attended". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.192.189 (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Prime ministers

In the opening paragraph, the article mentions 18 former prime ministers. Yet in the Old Etonians section, the number is suddenly 19. I looked it up, and the current Prime Minister is nog an OE, so one of these numbers is incorrect. Could someone check this please, as I have very little time, but I wanted to mention it anyway. Boris Barowski 10:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

19, I believe. Yanksta x 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked, it is 19 http://www.etoncollege.com/eton.asp?di=1256 I'll leave this section for references. Boris Barowski 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll clear this up. 18 British prime ministers, and another somewhere else. Fuzzibloke (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See the lower section on Prime Ministers. I've put the list there so that it's completely clear... --J.StuartClarke (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have ejected the links below from the main article as being in violation of WP:EL. I daresay that a few of these would make good references, however, they are not categorised as such. If these are meant to be refences to contents in the main article, they should be included as such in a format acceptable to WP:FOOT. Otherwise, they should remain deleted.

Ohconfucius 02:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the Time link, this contains much good material not in the article. You are probably right about the rest. Viewfinder 06:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a link to the Eton website from the 'See also' section as it is reserved for internal links only, as stated in the Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. The link was also repeated in the 'External links' section at the bottom of the page. Danielizzat 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have recycled most of these deleted external links as footnotes, per WP:FOOT. Xn4 02:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pranks and misbehaviour

Given the long tradition of tomfoolery, pranks and general misbehaviour at most (if not all) of Britain's public schools, substantiated by references in most literature and much film about such institutions, I believe it is appropriate to include information about those pranks and/or misdemeanours committed by both real and fictional Etonians.

I have therefore added a section below that on Incentives and Sanctions which addresses this area.

The two fictional references are easily verifiable, and the incident in 2004 is verifiable by contacting the school, school security, or any of the boys in College boarding house in 2004.

--

Despite this, however, this section has been removed several times in the past after I have added it. I would be grateful if anybody who disagrees with its inclusion, and can justify that disagreement in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines, could make contact with me to discuss the possibility of editing the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbhsc (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

School Uniform

In my day, all sixth formers wore white bow ties and wing collars - not just the prefects. Is this still true? Jpaulm 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Only School Officers now wear stick ups as they are called. So this includes members of the Eton Society, Sixth Form Select, Editors of the Chronicle & Keepers of various sports. magicman92 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Boy calls

The edit by 150.237.47.14 appears to me to be a good faith edit. I do not know if it is correct; as far as I can remember it was always "boy-up", but the edit certainly should not have been reverted without comment as though it were vandalism. Viewfinder 10:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was the reverter, I apologize. I thought that the edit was adding 'Queer' not 'Queue'. Sorry, I blame it on my dyslexia, Tiddly-Tom 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
To save anyone else the confusion, you're referring to 59.189.246.223, because 150.237.47.14 wrote about nothing but ring lickers and soggy biscuits ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the wrong IP number. Reverting vandalism is sometimes seems to be a Sisyphean task and inevitably we have some accidents. Viewfinder 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Prose"

Does the rather mysterious comment about replacing the list of bullets with "prose" just mean that we should get rid of the bullets? Jpaulm (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It means that it should be rewritten in paragraph form, explaining things and their significance, rather than simply being a list of references. For instance, Eton in popular culture has come to be synonymous with an elite education--it would be good if this section reflected that. The problem with lists is they tend to devolve into random lists of entries that tell you very little about the actual subject at hand. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense - I agree completely! Thanks for the prompt response! Jpaulm (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

Does anyone have any ideas as to the size of Eton's financial endowment? Is it made public at all? Jamesmh2006 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many different endowments. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help me understand

The article, which I feel must be in as near to Queen's English as Eton is to Windsor, says:
"Arguably, Eton's best known holiday takes place on the so called 'Fourth of June'"
Do people question that the holiday takes place then?
Or that it is the best known holiday?
Or by reasoning prove the matter?
The comma (which must be vital) seems to spead incomprenhesibilty. Or ain't proper English learned there?--SilasW (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, for example, next year the holiday will take place on 27th May, instead of the actual 4th June. Within the Eton community it is the most famous the three holidays (Fourth Of June, St Andrew's Day & Founder's Day). Hope that helps magicman92 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Balliol College, Oxford

Why do dozens of articles refer to "Eton and Balliol College", linking to separately to this article and to Balliol College, Oxford? When I type "Eton and Balliol" or "Eton and Balliol College" into the search bar, I get only search results. Balliol College is not mentioned on this article, and Eton College is not mentioned on the Balliol article. What is the relationship between the two colleges and why do so many articles refer to them as if they were one and the same? Neelix (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No connection. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Punishments and discipline

There doesn't seem to be much in the article about the punishments that are doled out for misbehaviour. Is corporal punishment still used, for example? If not, when was it abolished? --Richardrj talk email 15:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Corporal punishment is no more.
  • Tardy book. Unpunctual boys have to sign Tardy Book in School Office for a few days before breakfast.[9]
  • The Bill - whereby the pupil has to go and see the Headmaster or Lower Master and chores or a rebuke will be doled out.[10]
  • Expulsion. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See the section "incentives and sanctions". Viewfinder (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "world-famous" from lead sentence

I have removed this because:

  • It is peacock, and even if it is the world's most famous school, I am not sure that that necessarily implies "world-famous";
  • The school's fame is referred to elsewhere in the lead section, where it is properly referenced;
  • Its use in the lead sentence encourages its similar and unreferenced use by editors of other UK independent school pages (e.g. Charterhouse), who consider their schools to be on a parity with Eton.

Viewfinder (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research tag

TreasuryTag, please can we have some examples of "original research". You gave no details on the talk page, so I have removed the tag. I can find nothing that is not either sourced directly or comes from sources listed in the bibliography. Viewfinder (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Because Viewfinder (talk · contribs) insists that they are posted here in triplicate, my concerns are as follows, highlighted in purple for ease of noticing: The article contains a lot of uncited claims, in several sections, including (but not limited to) Overview, History, School Terms, Boys' Houses, Incentives & Sanctions, Prefects, Drama, Celebrations, School Magazines and In Popular Culture. If you read the template, it refers to "original research or unverified claims" – in this case, it's mainly unverified claims. Regards, ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please give details and examples of unverified claims, not just a list of sections. Viewfinder (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no intention of copy-pasting everything uncited onto this talkpage, because I've got a doctor's appointment in 2011, but here are some instances (there are many others; most of the sections I listed are 90%+ unreferenced):
  • The Michaelmas Half, from early September to mid December. New boys are now admitted only at the start of the Michaelmas Half, unless in exceptional circumstances.
  • They are called halves because the school year was once split into two halves, between which the boys went home.
  • As the school grew, more students were allowed to attend provided that they paid their own fees and lived in the town, outside the college's original buildings. These students became known as Oppidans...
  • Eton has a well-established system for encouraging boys to produce a high standard of work. An excellent piece of work may be rewarded with a "Show Up", to be shown to the boy's tutors as evidence of progress. If, in any particular term, a pupil makes a particularly good effort in any subject, he may be "Commended for Good Effort" to the Head Master (or Lower Master).
  • If any boy produces an outstanding piece of work, it may be "Sent Up For Good". The boy receives a card which he must get signed by his housemaster, tutor and head master. The work is then stored in the College Archives for posterity. This award has been around since the 18th century. As Sending Up For Good is fairly infrequent, the process is rather mysterious to many of Eton's boys. First, the master wishing to Send Up For Good must gain the permission of the relevant Head of Department. Upon receiving his or her approval, the piece of work will be marked with Sent Up For Good and the student will receive a card to be signed by House Master, tutor and division master.
  • The opposite of a Show Up is a "Rip". This is for sub-standard work, which is sometimes torn at the top of the page/sheet and must be submitted to the boy's housemaster for signature. Boys who accumulate rips are liable to be given a "White Ticket", which must be signed by all his teachers and may be accompanied by other punishments, usually involving chores or lines. In recent times, a milder form of the rip, known as the "info", which must also be signed, has been introduced.
  • In addition to the masters, the following three categories of senior boys are entitled to exercise school discipline. Boys who belong to any of these categories, in addition to a limited number of other boy office holders, are entitled to wear winged collars with bow ties.
Many regards. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these claims can be found in "Eton How it Works" which is listed in the Bibliography section. That book was published in 1967, but there have been only small changes since. As far as I am aware, book references are acceptable. Btw, the restoration of the tag breached WP:BRD. Viewfinder (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:BRD—no it didn't, feel free to escalate this, though.
  • Take a look at this featured article. The reference that was in the section linked to is the foundation for most of the article, and it is cited, in-line, every time material is drawn from it. You can click on each of the little letters next to it (a, b, c, etc.) to see each time there is a reference to it. The book really needs to be cited in the same way; otherwise, people like me will assume that material is unreferenced (how would I know what came from which book?) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

  • Please can we keep this discussion in one place, here, rather than on our talk pages, and in future, when you add this tag to articles, give details on their associated talk page.
  • I cannot see any evidence that the Dr Who article is or has ever been featured. Am I missing something?
  • WP:BRD - yes it did breach this, see WP:BRD#Revert, especially "try to avoid reverting reverts". Also your edit summary "extremely petty" raised the temperature unnecessarily and breached WP:CIV.
  • You can obtain the listed book and verify the claims via [11]. The claims have not previously been challenged, despite being posted several years ago, and you could challenge similar claims in the articles about most other independent schools in the UK. But if you really insist, I will add chapters and verses to the claims.

Regards, Viewfinder (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, for Heaven's sake...
  • It's featured, do you think I'm trying to deceive you about something so obvious? Look at the small star to the right of the page title. Or look at the second orange box on the article talkpage. Or look at the time when it was promoted to FA. Thanks for keeping me on my toes, though.
  • WP:BRD does not apply to tags (it applies to content consensus, see Wikipedia:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not), and it doesn't apply to me (or you, for that matter—it's an essay, not a policy or guidline... see WP:ESSAYS, which is a policy, and you appear to have breached it: "A link to an essay should not imply that it represents a policy or guideline.")
  • Re: your accusations of incivility, you have now four times accused me of breaking policies, and none of those times were you correct. I do not appreciate your holier-than-thou attitude. Could I advise that you hold back, or take your concerns to another forum? Because I'm 99.9263205% sure that I've not broken any rules.
  • I do insist that the article is sourced appropriately, so that someone reading any particular paragraph can verify it and find out more about it (yes, I know that I can buy the book, but—take the prefect passage as an example—how would I know which of the several books listed to buy?) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but with all due respect, adding tags that refer to talk pages without contributing to those talk pages is not helpful. Also, remarks like "childish", "extremely petty" and "oh for heaven's sake" raise the temperature unnecessarily, compromise the cordiality of discussion and breach at least the spirit of WP:CIV. Thank you for pointing out the Dr Who article FA star, sorry I missed it. That article looks generally well referenced but I still see unreferenced sentences. Also I still cannot find anything about tags being an exception to WP:BRD. Anyway, I will go back to the source and look at ways of improving the accuracy of the referencing. Viewfinder (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If you still think that I'm incivil, please take your concerns to another forum? Because I'm 99.9263205% sure that I've not broken any rules.
BRD applies to content consensus. Whether something is notable, or original research, or something. You don't form a consensus about whether or not to include tags. And it's not policy, so I can't have broken it. You can't "breach" an essay.
That's all for now. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 11:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to be provoked into raising the temperature further by formally reporting you. Pointing out your uncivil language here is sufficient. I have also added book and page number references to much of the material and removed the header tag. If you think there are places where the referencing is still inadequate, please tag them specifically with the "citation needed" tag. Viewfinder (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think I'd broken the civility policy. I'll check out your referencing now. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Section break: original research

Actually, there's still rather a lot that needs citing, as you can see – in fact, there's so much that I think the template would still be justified? Would you object if I replaced it (or would you mind doing it yourself)? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the items you have now tagged are linked to their own WP articles where the necessary information is to be found. Surely in that case a separate citation here is not needed. Examples: "A Yank at Eton" (film); George Orwell; Guy Burgess; "William Wilson" (short story); "The Eton Rifles" (song). Alarics (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
For much of it that's not true, but anyway, material should be cited, in this article. In the words of Jimbo, "Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed." It really shouldn't be difficult if it's true. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:CITE says that individual inline citations are required only in certain circumstances, the main one of which is "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Are you challenging, for instance, the very well-known fact that George Orwell was educated at Eton, particularly since, if you click on his (blue-linked) name in this article, you are taken to the article about George Orwell, which incidentally has 127 footnotes, where you find more about his time at Eton? Alarics (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that information should be cited, in-line, if such citations exists. This makes life easier for people reading the article. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If we continue down that road, practically every single word in the article will have to have its own footnote. This is not the norm on Wikipedia. Alarics (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. But if you have sentences such as, "Other school magazines including Spectrum and The Arts Review have been published, as well as publications produced by individual departments such as The Cave (Philosophy) and Etonomics (Economics). Releases of issues generally coincide with important events in the Eton calendar," then I will continue to ensure that they are tagged appropriately with {{fact}}. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I still do not think that the article needed more citations and I really do not think we need to clutter it up with as many as TreasuryTag is demanding. If it is stated and cited at George Orwell that he went to Eton, we surely do not to cite that fact again. The article is often seen by people who are or have been associated with the school, so any serious errors are picked up. Viewfinder (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

<< If it is cited in the George Orwell article, you can copy the citation. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I will say itt again. Please do not let's clutter up the article with an excess of citations. One other point. I never insisted that anything should be posted here "in triplicate". I merely asked that, as this page is linked to the header tag, you posted your reasons for tagging here - once, not in triplicate. Viewfinder (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to start harping back to the dispute you stirred up hours ago, then I'm not continuing this discussion. I'll keep the page on my watchlist, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Societies page

I do not think we need the separate page Eton College societies. It contains only material copied from the main page, a very incomplete list and a link to the societies page on the school website. I have transferred that link to the main page. Viewfinder (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Admission/Selectivity

I was wondering if the article should mention how students are admitted to Eton. Is there some sort of exam, application, or interview? What percent of those who apply apply are admitted?

first there is a unique pretest sat in what most schools call year 6, at 11+ stage. This includes a computer programme on a variety of things, and an interview. two fifths of these candidates get conditional places, with more on the waiting list. These boys then sit 13+ and about 99% of them pass, unless they have seriously dropped their standards. this system in quite new.

You haven't signed your comment, and you haven't mentioned the scholarship examination. --Jmenkus (T) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Toffs

Is it also relevant to mention that only toffs go there? Plebmonk 00:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Toff is perhaps an offensive term, but it is important to underline the ecomomic elitism of prestigious private schools. In any case, a tiny minority of the enrolled pupils are working class and in receipt of a scholarship, so it would be incorrect to say that only rich youths attend.--Fergie 08:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Untrue - Kittybrewster 09:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What is untrue? I agree with User:Fergie, except that I would drop the phrase "working class and". Jpaulm 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I AM an etonian and trust me, you couldnt describe us as toffs. OK so we passed an exam. two fifths of applicants get in. you cant tell me that two boys in five are toffs. i appeal to you to delete this offenive area. Look, my family is hardly rich either. i am offnded.

You seem to be suggesting that 'toff' is an acceptable term, yet that it is inaccurate to apply it to students enrolled at Eton. I doubt that many wikipedians would agree with either of these propositions.--Fergie 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think "toff" is a pejorative term, see [12], although some may regard it as such. I would not apply the term to all Etonians, although the term is more likely to be applicable to someone who is or has been at Eton than to someone who has not. Viewfinder 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if you had statistics showing the ratio of students from different backrounds it could be a legitimate point. Perhaps even a section about Eton's reputation, describing both it's academic prestige but also the common conception of it as a school for 'toffs' (in inverted commas)--Jlowther91 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rowing Achievements

It may be notable, to recognize Eton's recent achievements in Rowing/Crew. Their 1st VIII (top team) won The Schools Head of the River, National Schools and Henley (Princess Elizabeth Trophy) in 2008/2009 (as well as Head of the Charles). This is the coveted treble, rarely won. In addition, Eton won the Head of the Charles in 2008, and 2009.

For info about the treble, Head of the River.

In addition, in the 2009 Head of the Charles, Eton came 11th overall, with a time of 15:09:318, beating Yale, Harvard, Molesly and the Naval Academy, an astounding achievement for a under 18 crew. The next best highschool had a time of 15:52:161, 43 seconds slower.Agema Olympii (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lionel Fielden, The Natural Bent, (1960), pp. 28-29[13]
  2. ^ Sodom on the Thames: Sex, Love, and Scandal in Wilde Times, Morris B. Kaplan pp110-111
  3. ^ Lionel Fielden, The Natural Bent, (1960), pp. 28-29[14]
  4. ^ Sodom on the Thames: Sex, Love, and Scandal in Wilde Times, Morris B. Kaplan pp110-111
  5. ^ Linda Dowling, Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford p.115
  6. ^ Bart Schultz Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe - An Intellectual Biography p.411
  7. ^ Morris B. Kaplan, Sodom on the Thames: Sex, Love, and Scandal in Wilde Times p.107
  8. ^ Lionel Fielden, The Natural Bent, (1960), pp. 28-29[15]
  9. ^ [16]
  10. ^ [17]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eton_College/Archive_1&oldid=1252145787"