Talk:J. T. Vallance

Merging with Sydney Grammar School

I see little reason why this page shouldn't exist. It is an article of information and, as such, belongs in Wikipedia.

If you can find a practical reason why this article should not exist - i.e. Wikipedia.org can only handle so many pages thus it cannot afford this superfluous article etc. - then present it. Otherwise, the article should continue to exist and should, by all means, be improved upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.86.215 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Principals are inherently not notable enough for Wikipedia. I have no qualms with a short paragraph mentioning hmi in the SGS article, but do have problems with this page existing at present. Harro5 23:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Harro5 that the article should be merged with the SGS article--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

While I believe that discussion should be encouraged on matters of editing, at present the 'this article should be merged' banner at the top of the J.T. Vallance and SGS entries is distracting and aesthetically displeasing. Who, ultimately, is the arbiter of the merge? If this person exists can they please decide? If this person does not exist then I see little reason why the 'merge this page' banner should remain. Well may you ask why anyone has the right to add or remove the banner, however at the moment there are better arguments for its existence than there are for its removal: (i.) it is an article of knowledge and, after all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; (ii.) other entries on Headmasters - unrelated to SGS - exist yet no debate surrounds their existence; (iii.) those who are calling for its removal seem coincidentally interested in other schools that may be called rivals of SGS - Caulfied Grammar/Canberra Grammar - and it is difficult to separate genuine interest in 'Wikipedian' standards from conflicts of interest. If the latter is the case, then I suggest that you leave the page alone. If the former is the case, then please offer some precedent/rule to draw your objection from and edit the page accordingly. It is simply absurd to remain in this inert state with the banner.

(p.s.)I'm removing the banner. Replace it if you wish, but justify your actions appropriately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.91.120 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the two people on this page supporting the merge are registered users, so be careful who you call a non-existent contributor. We believe a merge is warranted as John Vallance in his own right is not notable. In the context of the SGS article he is worth a mention, but currently this seems like an attempt to win brownie points with the headmaster, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. I will reinstate the banner should it be removed unless registered users disagree. Feel free to sign up to Wikipedia and be involved in a fair debate about this. Thanks. Harro5 06:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I am going to put the ball in the court of those supporting this stub article. Why is John Vallance a particularly notable headmaster or academic? The arguments thus far have been:

• He has published a book. But there are a few million books out there.
• He has been a headmaster of a school. Please show where other people notable only for being headmasters/principals have Wikipedia articles. I've seen a lot of school articles, but none of these.
• "Because he is a leadimg figure in private education" (comment by Simonboyer below). Umm, any references to back that up? What has he done which has changed private education in Australia?

I will be happy to rethink the merger if something truly warrants this article. Otherwise, I will merge the content and put this up for WP:AFD shortly. Thank you. Harro5 07:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Firstly, I am a member and I apologize for not posting under my user-name (this does not distract from my argument, however). Secondly, his name is John Vallance not Valentine. Thirdly, I never called anyone a 'non-existent contributor', I don't really know what you mean by that. Fourthly, your 'brownie' points allegation is unfounded and unnecessary. It is plain to see that you completely ignored what I had to say earlier about editing and have simply decided to pursue your own agenda which - seeing as you don't even know the name of the person discussed and resorted to a frivolous accusation - appears to be based in a petty rivalry with SGS, in the manner which I denounced earlier. I made it clear that if someone were to remove the banner they should 'justify it appropriately'. Your only justification is that, as a registered user, you don't agree with the page's existence. I'm sure other registered users would support me in saying that that is not an 'appropriate' justification, as per my reasonable prerequisite. I asked further that if someone were to add the banner they do so not out of rivalry, as it appears you have, but, rather, based on 'some precedent/rule'. In ignoring this prerequisite you have further shown yourself to be driven by petty rivalry rather than any 'Wikipedian' standards, as I reasonably demanded an editor should be in my previous post. In summary, according to reason, I have every right to remove the banner. If you can meet any of the fair requirements I have established earlier, then, by all means, merge the page. If you cannot, then please, as I asked earlier, leave the page alone.
  • (p.s.) I am removing the banner again. Please do not replace it without an appropriate justification.
  • Please do not merge the page without responding to my requests. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savaloy (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Response at User talk:Savaloy. I would like to see similar responses to my problems isted above. This, right here, is almost some productive discussion. Good to see. Harro5 07:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Please do not merge the page without responding to my requests. 'please keep label. this is to allow for discussion to easily occur, no matter the outcome' is unnecessary. If you paid any attention at all to what I have said, the merge banner is unnecessary and discussion is unnecessary. Either recall a precedent/rule to merge the page or just leave it alone. If you cannot recall a precedent/rule then do not simply leave the tag there. Discussion will not be necessary unless you can recall a precedent/rule and merge accordingly. In all honesty, I'd rather you just left the page alone. The burden of justifying the page's existence should not fall on the page's creators. If that were so I could challenge any page about any school - after all, there are millions of schools out there, what makes one more important than the other? I can recall instances of headmasters who are just headmasters having their own page, however I shouldn't have to justify this page's existence other than saying that is is an article of knowledge. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should have as many articles of knowledge as possible. Ideally, every Headmaster - including that of Caulfied Grammar - should have a page. Discussion over pages and deletion of pages should be reserved for articles with contentious or objectionable content. The article on J.T. Vallance has neither. I ask you now, Harro to just leave the page alone and perhaps we can start a movement in which every Headmaster/mistress has their own article. Please consider my comments. (p.s.) I don't know how to send personal messages, so until then I'll have to talk to you through here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savaloy (talk • contribs) 07:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not merging without consensus, but I won't just leave and remove the tag without it either. To post on my talk page, follow the link to my user page (ie. click my name Harro5) and then click talk up the top to get to that page. Unfortunately I cannot recall a precedent of a merger happening with a principal's article as I can't even recall another one existing. Why, you ask? Because it is accepted that there is no reason for a principal to have their own page when they could simply have a paragraph in the school's article. You have made a few references to the article I wrote for Caulfield Grammar School, and you may notice that there is no accompanying article for the principal, despite him having achieved similar acclaim to Mr. Vallance here. I cannot pull evidence which does not exist, but I will refer you to Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. I mightn't fully agree with this policy, and it mightn't fully agree with my argument in this case, but at least you can see I am not completely overstepping the line here. Note, you still haven't responded to my list of qualms with this page. Harro5 07:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

To gratify you and further settle this ONCE and FOR ALL. I will deal with your 'qualms'.

'He has published a book. But there are a few million books out there.' -At what point does an author deserve a page? Moreover, this article isn't about his oeuvre of work. He is a Headmaster who happens to be an author - the fact that he has written a book is an article of interest. He is also the author of the articles on Medicine and Anthropology in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. But the article itself is related more to his tenure as Headmaster, as such, his writing a book is incidental and not of importance in justifying the article.

'He has been a headmaster of a school. Please show where other people notable only for being headmasters/principals have Wikipedia articles. I've seen a lot of school articles, but none of these.' - As I mentioned to you and, for everyone else, Josiah Bunting III.

'Because he is a leadimg figure in private education (comment by Simonboyer below). Umm, any references to back that up? What has he done which has changed private education in Australia?' - I didn't make this claim and therefore see no need to justify it. It would not be difficult however. Headmasters of SGS in the past, such as R.D. Townsend and A.M. Mackerras were revered figures in Australian private education and I'd hasten to say that JT Vallance's opinion on matters of private education would not be taken lightly. Hence he may be regarded as an important but, perhaps not, leading figure of private education. Saying that, he could lead if he wanted to...

Satisfied? Now that I have met your requests. Meet mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savaloy (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please sign all comments with four tildes like this ~~~~. This can be found in the toolbar above the edit box, second-last button on the right. To put it bluntly, you're not really convincing me at all. Vallance just isn't worthy of this article - to compare him to the superintendent of VMI is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. VMI is one of the most important institutions in America! Harro5 08:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't need to 'convince' you. I've asked that you find a precedent/rule for the merger and state it. The rule you cited was incorrect. I've dealt with your 'qualms' however it appears from your last post that you're simply set in your irrational ways: 'Vallance just isn't worthy of an article'. I thought I was dealing with a rational person, however it would appear from your comment - 'the stupidest thing I've ever heard' - that your just a petulant child. This is the last time I will discuss the matter. Do not put the tags back without stating a precedent/rule.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.91.120 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• An Australian precedent for merger of an article about a principle with the school of which he is principle is Robert Knight (principal). The article was merged following no concensus to delete on the deletion debate - there was however, a stong minority to merge - 11 votes calling for deletion, 5 votes for merge, 1 for keep.

With reference to the comments about editing competing school articles, User Savaloy has only contributed to the wikipedia on the subject of SGS. Both user:Harro5 and I have contributed on a broad range of articles. Furthermore, neither Canberra Grammar not Caulfield Grammar are competing with SGS - the odd 100 miles or more in geographic separation ensures that the markets for educating boys in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra are discrete.

The debate about whether Vallance should have an article or not should focus on the criteria in the policy which provides some guidance in this area, ie Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies and other pages relating to inclusion of biographies. If he is to be included as an author, does the book have an audience of greater than 5,000 and can you please cite your sources as to how you know about the audience figure? Otherwise what criteria are you using for the entry to not be merged with the institution of which he is principal.--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) As AYArktos has just mentioned, Robert Knight (principal) was merged into Glenunga International High School. This article is not warranted: it appears J T Vallance's only significant claim to notability is his connexion to SGS. Thus, one would expect discussion on him there. If this were submitted to Afd, I'd suggest merge.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I have contributed only to SGS has little bearing on this discussion. The note on rivalry was warranted in that rivalry does not solely refer to competition for student places but, as anyone who knows what the word rivalry means, refers to a degree competition at any number of levels. Where AYArktos is correct is in his citation of Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. On reviewing this and finding that JT Vallance does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, I withdraw my objections for merger. Thankyou AYArktos for meeting my requirement of a 'rule/precedent' which, as anyone can note, Harro5 repeatedly neglected to do. I now wholeheartedly endorse the merger of the pages according to the rule cited. I will now merge the page. Discussion is encouraged! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savaloy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Savaloy, do you think you could please sign your own talk page edits? It's a very time-consuming task having to go around after you signing them all. Please just remember to type ~~~~ at the end of each discussion page edit. This will place a signature there giving your username and the time and date. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Unmerging

Vallance is no longer associated with Sydney Grammar School, and is now State Librarian and Chief Executive State Library of New South Wales. There are plenty of citations indicating notability, and I have removed the redirection. Pru.mitchell (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

First Name

• Does anyone know his first name spelt out in full? Enochlau 14:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think its John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeytrumpets (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

His name is John Taber Vallance. I really see no reason why he should not be in Wikipedia. If Sydney Grammar School is included, then so should Vallance as he is one of the leading figures in Australian private education. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.53.114 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Taber? How do you know its Taber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeytrumpets (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I know that his first name is John as i am a member of sydney grammar school. I am In year 10 and i think that Dr Valance deserves his own page in wiki because of his notale achievements and because he is a leadimg figure in private education.--Simonboyer 08:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Restored the banner

I have restored the "disputed merger" banner with the following edit summary:

"Restoring disputed merger banner; it doesn't make sense to remove it while the dispute continues and people of good faith disagree on the issue."

I hope that's clear. Some people want a merge, at least one person opposes it. These seem to be sincerely held views so there's no doubt that the dispute is a real one. Please resolve this dispute in a civil manner. I'll try to help if I can. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

a note

I don't know who is Mr Vallance. The article is too small that merging sounds good as an option (and keeping this page as a redirect). Perhaps he is a notable scientist. In that case, I would suggest to all parties interested, the following: Write a small paragraph on the big article that would be a summary for J. T. Vallance and then expand the article about Vallance. It is marked as a stub, and I agree with that tag. +MATIA ☎ 10:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. That way there will be information about him in the school article, and anyone wanting to know more can go to this article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried google, but I still don't know who is Mr Vallance. But this (citations by others) about his book should be included somewhere (either here or in a subsection of Sydney Grammar School, I don't know if it should be merged or not). Good luck to all those who are involved and interested in this topic. +MATIA ☎ 10:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Enough Info

I go to Sydney Grammar and know him enough that he should have his own article. In a couple of months when I will have enough time, I can write a whole article on him, not just a paragraph. I may ask him to write some information himself (unlikey though). He is a classics teacher, specialising in Latin and Greek. The article does not only have to be a biography of course, it can also have the significant changes that have taken place. However, at the moment until I have time to write the article I don't mind merging and redirecting it to Sydney Grammar. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 10:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. I agree that it's unlikely that he'll write his wiki but perhaps he could grant some sort of license to reproduce some passages about him, or anything similar, here in WP. +MATIA ☎ 13:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged

Article is now merged following removal of objection from User:Savaloy as per his edit of 20:02, 23 October 2005 (AEST) --User:AYArktos | Talk 10:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On notability

Since Vallance is a fellow of Gonville and Caius and is also a published author, he's almost certainly notable enough for his own article. Being the head of a prestigious school makes him more so, not less.

I refer to:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents

• • Authors and writers are notable if they have released a book (other than through vanity press)
  • Professors are notable if they have made significant contribution to one or more books (not just papers)

--Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. +MATIA ☎ 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

proposal

Since he is notable, I'd suggest to remove the phrases "The book itself is regularly quoted in the Oxford Archaeology Department, University of Chicago Archaeology Department and several natural medicinal volumes internationally.Dr. Vallance is also the author of the entries on medicine and anthropology in 'The Oxford Classical Dictionary 5th Edition'." from the big article and have a wikilink to point here (then this should be expanded by those who know about him). +MATIA ☎ 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the merged version for now. Just because somebody may possibly merit an article of his own doesn't mean he must have one, if instead the information may be useful in another article. Let's try it like this for a bit, and if it doesn't work out we can go to the solution I suggested earlier. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)