Talk:Latymer Upper School/Archive 1

Archive 1

New badge

I removed the following from the article:

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

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

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

For what it's worth, I don't like the new badge either. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

~ :Leftblank 19th October, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anon (class of 05)

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

Speaking with the benefit of prior experience, I can assure you that boring speeches at the end of every term are nothing new. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yours sincerely - Old Latymerian 1626

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

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

The Law of Arms

Chelseaboy added this to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was thinking about this again today in light of current policy. It's simple: Wikipedia does not make inferences in its articles. Period. Therefore it's out again unless someone can find a quotable source. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey of pupils

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

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

Unfortunately, unless a reliable source for this statement can be found, it can't stay in. Sorry. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethos

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

Famous Old Lats

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Oldcoatofarms.jpg

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

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

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

Advertising tone

Despite the one sentence about ecstasy in the school (let's face it, every school has the odd incident and I don't think it particularly worthy of a mention), the article reads marginally like an advert. One phrase which stands out in the lead section, "According to the Good Schools Guide, the school "Aims to set new standards for co-education in west London."" I do not have access to the GSG article, but have some difficulty imagining it is something that the GSG is capable of saying off its own what the school aims to do. Rather, I suspect that the GSG probably quoted something in the mission statement of the school. If that is the case, the citation should be amended to so read. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have now cleaned up the article by removing some of the worst 'advertising'. I have also copyedited and rearranged some of the sentences. The above point about what says the GSG remains outstanding. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Year 11 drug taking

Who keeps removing the content surrounding the year 11 drug abuse in ravenscourt park? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.198.240 (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed something like that recently from the controversies section. There was no independent coverage from reliable sources, which indicates it is not of interest outside the school. Did it make the news? Did it have a wider effect on school policies in the region? Who considers this controversial or worthy of note? Where are the independent reliable sources? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected

As this article is subject to continual vandalism, I have semi-protected it (meaning that unregistered users cannot edit it).  — Scott • talk 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Davidsteed, 13 May 2010

Add under in other fields

• Giles Milton Author and Journalist

Davidsteed (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done  — Scott • talk 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Geenweg24, 3 June 2010

Controversies: Repeat of Prom drugs scandal in 2010 http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/fulham-and-hammersmith-news/2010/06/01/private-school-rocked-by-drugs-scandal-82029-26566745/

Geenweg24 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Hi there, I've declined this request as no request has been made to edit the article. Please make sure that in any future requests that you make you use the format "Please change x to y", otherwise it can be difficult for us to find out exactly what edit you would like to be made to the page. Thanks, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.163.68.128, 8 June 2010

Please add information on the latest drug taking to occur at the school prom. Specifically, something to the effect of "Students have again been found to be in possession of drugs at the school's end of year prom." Information is available here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284962/Sixth-formers-private-school-expelled-cocaine-drunken-end-year-prom.html http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23842436-boys-expelled-over-cocaine-after-latymer-upper-school-prom-ends-in-chaos.do

Please also consider moving the section further up in the article - since it is a repeat occurrence, one would argue it is worthy of more attention that a list of alumni.

86.163.68.128 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but will leave it open for other opinions. CTJF83 pride 02:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per previous editor. Not an outstanding and/or notable event. SpigotMap 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

I removed the section, which consisted of the following:

A group of students caught the attention of the tabloid press in 2007 after they were caught giving out ecstasy at the school prom. They were subsequently expelled.

This gets added to the article from time to time but is really unnecessary; an incident of kids expelled for drugs does not reflect on the whole school (I doubt there is any public school in the land that has not expelled a pupil for drugs). That a tabloid newspaper chose to run a sensationalist piece on the incident gives it entirely disproportionate weight, and certainly doesn't merit a section headline of "Controversies" [sic].  — Scott • talk 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if you read the Evening Standard article linked in the talk section above this one, the headmaster is quoted as saying "The fact is that every school in the country has a drug problem — not one is immune from the scourge." Not that this will obviously stop the tabloids salivating over anything with the faintest connection to some celebs, such as former Latymer pupils. Wikipedia articles can do better.  — Scott • talk 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You speak of the headmaster's quote as though it should be taken as God's word, and that Latymer doesn't have a drugs problem over and above the average school (with two separate events caught by the British press). I should argue that the fact the headmaster seems to border on endorsing drug use by virtue of parental usage/acceptance is worthy of note "Most Latymer parents welcome this strong line, although by no means all". 86.161.117.187 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Editing Request: Oxbridge figures

In fact 25% of Latymerians do not go to Oxbridge, the figure is at most 12%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lat646 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012

Please change fees from £14,955 to £16,035 as of September 2012 2.26.238.60 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Slaughter

Since 2010, Andrew Slaughter has been the MP for Hammersmith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.1.246.244 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Addition to 6.2 - musical alumni

Suggest that Anthony Hose be added to the list of musical alumni from Latymer. Biography from the website of the Welsh Chamber Orchestra.

http://welshchamberorchestra.com/anthonyhose.html

76.176.116.69 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: removed the block of copyrighted text that was pasted above.  — Scott • talk 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017

Under the "Facilities" heading it states the school plans to construct a new sports centre which houses a swimming pool etc. As of the 16th March 2016, this said facility has opened. Instead it should say something along the lines of: "As of March 2016, the school has opened a state of the art sports facility, including a six lane swimming pool with fully adjustable floor; basketball hoops; badminton markings; a fitness suite and a rock climbing wall whilst at the same time offering an area for all pupils to take their examinations in." Source: "http://www.latymer-upper.org/about-us/extra-curricular/sport/new-sports-centre-opens" Ninja1205 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Done — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 18:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

Could we try again? Best wishes. Add Philip I. Murray, Professor of Ophthalmology, University of Birmingham to Old Latymerians. Edit to read in the list:

  'Philip I. Murray, Professor of Ophthalmology, University of Birmingham'

Source: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/inflammation-ageing/murray-philip.aspx Shamdasm (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Philip Murray has no article to link to so there's no point in adding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done, In future, please avoid editing the original request when the request was answered, make a separate request at the end of the section than editing the declined request. Please refer → talk page guidelines. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

HMC membership = public school

Um, not quite sure why there's a kerfuffle here. Latymer is a long-established member of the Headmasters' Conference, and as such, as defined in the Fleming Report 1944 (cited in the article), it is unquestionably a public school in UK education terminology. If people want to say "independent" as well, I guess that's all right, though it's redundant to the more specific term: all UK public schools per Fleming 1944 are independent, but not vice versa. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with you here. I don't even think the independent is needed, as it makes the lead sentence a bit wordy. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we'll be better off without it. Feel free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1