Talk:Eton College

Uniform

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

Public Schools Act 1868.

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

New section on 2013 Exam Question Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farming

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

Eton attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford University

It has been pointed out that admissions to Oxford of Etonians have little to do with academic merit. The same has been said about Westminster School. High officials at Westminster are often officials at Oxford and Cambridge colleges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.32.1 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been pointed out -- in a more believable way -- that Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Greg Winter and Christopher Lewis are high officials at Westminster and the two, Oxford and Cambridge.