Talk:List of Old Gregorians

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Schools High‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sir Mark Allen

Needs to be added in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.19.249 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notables

The following were removed as "non-notables":

Seamus Cullen
Simon Cummings – radio presenter

--Cjc13 (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note lots of alumni, which I had removed as uncited, have been put back with an edit summary including "see articles for individuals for sources". I started adding reference to this article a few weeks ago until which it had a banner saying "This article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies. Please improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources cited within this article showing they are notable and alumni or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations." I couldn't see any citations on the individual articles saying they attended this school. I think they should be removed unless citations can be added which specifically say they attended Downside school.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things, on the page there are books included in the references that list pupils at the school which are effective as references. Where the school is included in the relevant article, it seems reasonable anyway to include them on this list. If you want to challenge this, then do so on the individual article page rather than on this list. Your edits at times seem to show a prejudice against Downside School. Other school lists do not seem to be treated so harshly, eg List of people educated at Stonyhurst College. In general the schools to which people went are generally known and errors are quickly identified and corrected. Cjc13 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to record my very real disquiet at the editorial policiy being used in relation to this article. Why should it be necessary to provide citations for every single individual? If that was genuinely appropriate why has the same requirement not been applied to other articles which are identical in purpose but relate to other schools? I would direct attention, for example, to (1.) Old Shirburnians and (2.) List of Old Cliftonians. They use almost no citations or references at all for individuals and yet they are not being subject to the same process of editorial deletion. Why should that be? Is that reasonable? Clrfr-2 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and being willing to discuss this, however I feel very uncomfortable about the suggestion of "prejudice" in my editing. My area of activity is Somerset so the comparators to me are other private schools in the county eg List of Old Millfieldians, King's College, Taunton, Taunton School, Wellington School, Somerset, Wells Cathedral School etc (there are others I haven't got to yet which don't have citations and the same applies to state schools but they don't tend to have extensive lists of alumni). I have not even looked at, let alone edited the examples you cite, and if I did I would suggest the same criteria apply. If the books included verify the claim that a particular individual attended the school ie "List of Boys at St Gregory's" then further details need to be given (eg publisher and year of publication) so that in line with wikipedia's Verfiiability policy the claim can be checked and I feel they should be cited against individual entries. You say the school which people went to is "generally known" in which case it should be fairly easy to provide a citation backing this up - in all the cases I deleted I searched on the web for sources that back the claim up and was unable to find it. You suggest that it should be challenged on the article about the individual, however the reader coming to this list shouldn't have to go to the individual's article to verify the facts on this list - and anyway I couldn't find any citations on those articles backing up the claim that they attended this school. I remember discussions related to this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 17#Including lists of alumni (& need for citations) where I asked about this, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 19#Notable alumni, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 4#Sourcing alumni) about the need for verification of claims about alumni. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Alumni you will see the statement "Please only include alumni if a reliable source verifies they went to the school." I will put a note on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset asking others to give their thoughts on this discussion as well.— Rod ^talk 08:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the books are given on the page as Downside Abbey is the publisher, eg see Google books. Where a list is using existing information from wlthin Wikipedia as shown by the use of blue links, it does not really seem necessary to show a separate source. It is just as easy if not easier to check an article as it is to check a reference. If the information is incorrect then the logical place to challenge it is in the original article. To remove information from the page does seem very judgemental. If you are going to do so, it would seem proper to include a note on the talk page about the issue involved. Cjc13 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the book as a source - I am surprised it doesn't have an isbn number - do you own a copy? If so would you object to adding it (with the relevant page number) to the uncited ones? Your suggestion that information available from another article via a blue link doesn't need a source is not (in my experience) considered sufficient on wikipedia. If you look at Wikipedia:Citing sources it says that "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed." and I believe I followed this guideline. On 28 February 2012 the template Template:Alumni was added which produces a banner saying "This article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies. Please improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources cited within this article showing they are notable and alumni or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations." This was still in place when I started editing the article on 8 October. When I added references to several of the entries (and removed some non-notable) I removed the banner but left "citation needed" tags on the individuals I could not find sources for. I removed the uncited ones a couple of weeks later, you reverted and now we are discussing it - following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I still feel that those which do not have a citation to a source which says they were a student at the school should be removed and do not feel this is "judgmental".— Rod ^talk 20:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that Wikipedia policy is so clearly defined. Template:Alumni seems to be the work of a few editors rather than agreed Wikipedia policy. One point I would make is that these entries are verifiable as shown by the number of entries that have been verified and by the existance of the printed lists in book form, but it may just take some time to find a source that can be properly quoted for wikipedia purposes, so leaving the citation tag for a reasonable time to allow refs to be added should be sufficient. On more general points, it seems excessive to require refs used in articles of individuals to be repeated in lists of individual. I do not see where a person went to school as being controversial and it is usually not challenged in articles, so I am not sure of the necessity of chalenging it in lists. In general these alumni lists are frequently read by people who went to the schools and so do not seem to be a cause of significant errors. Any errors are quickly corrected by editors with knowledge of the school and its former pupils. Thus I do not see the need for stringent verification. I think a reader is more likely to go to the relevant individual's article rather than bother to check a reference. Have you found any entries that have turned out to be incorrect? From personal experience, I have found these lists to be very accurate and well maintained. Cjc13 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, citation needed is not allowed for these. The governing policy/guideline is WP:NLIST, which requires that all living people in lists must have a citation somewhere on Wikipedia that 1) verifies the person is important (this is a lower standard than notability, but higher than average), and 2) was an alumni of this school. Absent such verification, the item must be removed. If the person has their own Wikipedia article, then they automatically pass #1. Also, it's fine for the citation to be on the linked page; it doesn't have to be copied here (though there's no harm in doing so). Absent such a citation either here or on a target page, the person must be removed from the list immediately, being re-added only after citation. I do this all of the time for school alumni lists, notable residents lists, etc. I don't have the time or energy to do it yet again here, but whoever is removing uncited lines is correct, and reverting to re-add them is not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the above two names have not been added back on the list, although if citations of both notability and alumni were provided I think there may be a case to do so. The discussion is actually about people who do have articles and whether citations have to be included in the list. Where an article says that a person went to the school, for the reasons given above, I think it is reasonable to include them on the list. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have no problem with notability if they have wikipedia articles. I am talking about those which are included in the list which have "citation needed" next to them. I think they should be removed, supported by the comments by Qwyrxian, unless a citation can be added which says that they attended this school. Looking at their individual articles, even where it says they attended this school (and several don't), there is no citation for that claim (if there was I would copy the citation to the list).— Rod ^talk 16:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take Adam Zamoyski as an example. On his article there is a general citation of his website, which in the author section [1] says that he attended Downside School. Usually the school is not a controversial area and is often covered by general references. If you really want to challenge an entry at least give a chance for references to be found. Cjc13 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've added the ref for Adam Zamoyski - this is exactly the sort of thing we need - I don't think self published sources are any problem for this sort of claim. I note you have removed Denis Wheatley as not attending Downside. Although the citation needed tags have been in place for several weeks I have no problems with waiting a bit (unlike Qwyrxian who says they should be removed "immediately"), as ultimately we are all trying to improve wikipedia.— Rod ^talk 19:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cjc13: Apologies, maybe I wasn't clear: you may not wait with citation needed tags on these. WP:NLIST points out that these entries must have a source. This basically has to do with the nature of lists, especially BLP lists, and the fact that these tend to attract a lot of self-promotion and/or spam. Please remove those without sources; build a list here on talk if you want while you look for sources. As for self-citations, I'd be inclined to agree that a self-source would be fine, as long as it were from something "official", like a personal website or self-authored book since we're just talking about secondary school here. The only exception would be if the school were particularly renowned, like Eton, in which case I'd want the independent clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it has now been over two weeks since the last comment I have removed those without citations. These can be put back as soon as we can find citations for them.— Rod ^talk 18:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying sooner but I have been busy with other matters. I have reversed the latest change as I do not think that it has been properly justified, see comments below. Cjc13 (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point about Adam Zamoyski has been missed. The link to the website with his bio was already on his article page. His school is part of the basic bio info so is not specifically line referenced. I think this applies to most cases where education is part of the basic bio data and may not be precisely referenced but is still valid.

In the case of James Miller there is a reference regarding his education a newspaper obituary. Although the link no longer works, the reference is still valid in the same way as a book reference is valid. For further validation, see this link.

In the case of Eugene Simon, there is a link on his article to an interview in which he discusses going to Downside School.

For John Mullan, here is a specific reference [2].

This to me illustrates the inappropriateness of Rodw's recent editing on this page. Personally if you want to remove names from this page then I think you should do it individually with proper justification for the removal, as in the case of Denis Wheatley.

Personally I do not see any justification for removing names where the school is stated in the article for the individual. It is part of the basic biographical details of the individual, often covered by a general reference. If you want to challenge it I think you should challenge it on the article page not the list and I do not think that you would remove it from the article page without good reason as it clear that under normal circumstances any individual would have gone to at least one school. I do not think that the wording of the guideline quoted is consistent with wikipedia policy as regards references, as in general the school to which an individual went is not controversal and goes unchallenged in articles. Looking at lists of alumni within wikikpedia, most lists do not bother with references as links to the individual articles are sufficient. Cjc13 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the references for Miller, Mullan and Simon which I have added - it would probably have been quicker and easier to add these your self. That still leaves Dominic Brigstocke, Andrew Crawford, John Drummond, 17th Earl of Perth, Chris Kelly, Halik Kochanski and Sir Walter Richard Middleton Nugent uncited and I can't see any references on their individual article pages which support this claim. The fact that "the school is stated in the article for the individual" is not enough as this could have been added by anyone and fails the Verifiability requirements. I still believe that the claim that an individual attended a particular school needs a citation to support it, as stated by Qwyrxian quoting WP:NLIST. If we can find these we can add them, however if no citation can be found I think the guidance cited above suggests they should be removed.— Rod ^talk 13:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cjc13: I don't understand what you aren't getting here. The guideline is clear. Rodw, you are welcome to re-remove the ones you say don't have references. Cjc13, if you revert, I will strongly consider blocking you for edit warring against Wikipedia guidelines. Again, this is not a case that is up to editor discretion--WP:NLIST is very very clear that there must be a reference, either here or on the article. You don't get to make up your own rules that apply only to this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline is not the same as a policy and that part of it does not seem to be in accordance with citation policy, with actual practice on Alumni and other lists within Wikipedia, and in my view with common sense. I accept that Rodw and yourself see things differently, although Clrfr-2 seems to agree with me. However my main objection was that Rodw was taking off the page names where there was a reference on the article page, such as Adam Zamoyski, James Miller and Eugene Simon. (Note Chris Kelly (TV presenter) has a ref on his page, Who's Who on Television (ITV Publications); 1983, regarding his education). Also even if a reference is required, I feel that there is no harm in leaving the names on the page with a citation tag so as to give editors time to find the references. Cjc13 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any compelling reason why the guideline shouldn't apply here. I'm with Rod and Qwyrxian on that. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cjc13: perhaps as a new editor you aren't aware, but there isn't really a substantive difference between policies and guidelines. Both exist because they codify long-term consensus across a broad community. On average, guidelines have more "exceptions" than policies (e.g., there's no article for which it's okay to not follow WP:NPOV), but those exceptions must be justified. There is no reason why this specific school deserves to follow a special rule that other schools don't. As to other lists--you're right, many other alumni lists are flawed; this is covered under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that is never a justification for making yet another article worse. One of the things I personally spend a fair amount of my WP time on is cleaning up lists like this. Now, even if I were to bend so far as to say that a citation needed tag could be allowed to stand for awhile, it's already been several weeks. That's more than enough time for something of this nature, especially given how long these names were already in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After happening on this discussion completely by chance, I'd like to add that I support the removal of persons from lists where their attendance at the institution isn't verified in reliable sources. It also makes perfect sense to me for refs to be duplicated between articles: this facilitates easier verification by readers. -- Trevj (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having waited over a month I have once again those individuals where the entry does not have a citation, in line with the discussion above.— Rod ^talk 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that on this occasion you have given some time for references to be found. I note that as a result fewer names have been removed this time. I still think people are more likely to look at the articles for verification rather than a reference.

I have added back John Drummond as I have now found a reference. Also Chris Kelly as there is a reference on his page regarding his education. (The paragraph and the reference were added on the same day by the same person, see the edits on 21 June 2010) Cjc13 (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone advise if they read this? I've just out of curiously been doing some googling and have been finding some info on my uncle- Simon Cummings. He most definitely was an old gregorian, and I believe he should be listed under the notable old gregorian page as a radio presenter (for County Sound). I'm pretty upset and dismayed to find his name has been removed, for reasons I don't really understand (seems that some people don't believe he really went there..? Why?) I'm sure he'd correct you himself but he tragically died in 1996 after bravely battling an illness for many years. I feel it's insulting and disrespectful to remove his name from the list purely because he happened to live and die pre-internet days, so his records do not exist on some digital database. If anyone would like proof I'm sure somewhere there exists all manor of photographs, letters home and school reports from his time at school there. It would take some time to gather however and would seem like overkill and very insensitive and unempathetic, so I will attempt to change this back so his name is placed on the list where it belongs. If anyone has a problem with this please take this up with me before you change it (email loti.shoes@gmail.com) and I'll provide you personally with proof, to try to dissuade anyone from taking it upon themselves to remove a man's name from this list that they knew nothing about.

Merger proposal

This article and Gregorian (Downside School) seem to be about the same topic therefore I would suggest they should be merged.— Rod ^talk 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Rod. It is a pointless fork and I have redirected it to the list article. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Old Gregorians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]