Talk:Raffles Institution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

General

Mufti day isn't something new. It happened before exactly 4 years ago in 2001. I was a student then. Don't know if there were any between 2002-2004, since I had graduated by then. - KC

I feel that Raffles Institution (RI) is a wonderful school with wonderful teachers. Maybe it is just because I study there, but you have to believe me.

- No propaganda/advertisement here.

somebody should update the sgwiki version of this page. at http://www.sgwiki.com/RAFFLES_INSTITUTION

cool didn't realize wiki had sgversion lor. X)

I totally agree. But someone should remove all the ghost stuff from the article. It scares people, including prospective primary six pupils.

- Just because they scare people does not mean that said stories are not told and retold. Perhaps a separate section for apocryphal tales (eg ghost stories) can be added). I also think the encyclopedic feel of the article can be maintained without making the article sound like a press release from the School.

• lol i study in RI too. have not experienced any ghosts or any other supernatural stuff though stayed overnight in RI for camps before. warning though, its kinda scary at night =) [ Gene ]

uhh i see no problem with the ghost stories posted here... infact many schs r haunted by ghosts lor... so they claim.

• nothing big deal lah... rumors are fun anyway. fun is good. [fried]

RI is 194 years old not 193 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juicywawa (talk • contribs) 09:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Those rumours are more or less told by the seniors to scare the juniors during overnight camps...

yah lah, quite fun also, feel like seeing the floating baby... haha +mg+

Ghosts stories? We had those in TCHS too. 'On a rainy day in April, you can sometimes see a PE t-shirt floating about the clock tower...' - some student, forgot who.

Strangely those ghost stories were unheard of among the older batch of students. Gonococcus 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Coming from an even older generation who was part of the movie from Grange Road to Bishan, I would say that there were many more ghost stories in existence for the former venue. Nevertheless, being next to a Columbarium, we have 'heard', or so we thought, crying near the vicinity of the senior block at Bishan. I've stayed late in school until perhaps 9-10pm many times and have never seen or heard anything particularly unusal other than this. [totoro]

Raffles Institution Prefectorial Board

"Raffles Institution boasts one of the most vibrant, active, and effective Prefectorial Boards in Secondary Schools in Singapore."

This was clearly written by a member of the Prefectorial Board and in no way was it done from a neutral point of view. When I attended this school, the Board (as a whole) was most unpopular as the Prefects were perceived as doing little else other than enforcing discipline (booking latecomers, students with inappropriate attire, etc). That they were essentially handpicked by the school administration (there were farcial elections in which typically only one candidate out of about thirty would fail to make the cut) hardly helped. Whether or not these perceptions were warranted is irrelevant; they must be represented in this article as mandated by Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.

- Ditto. In my time some (well, at least one that I can remember) of them booked people for stupid reasons. We speculated that they had a quota to hit. I also took part in an election in which all of the candidates were elected to the board. Bollocks.

- "when i attended this school" <-- when was that?

well, from a current student's observation, trying to be absolutely neutral, one has to admit that the current selection of prefects has come into power, if we may say that, at least partly due to the election and nomination fo students.. also they do undertake certain other important roles in the administration fo the school, such as aiding in the organisation, or organizing idependantly, certain events.. however, the general feeling is still, i must say, that prefects are a separate breed from the comman student, if one may make such a generalization.. the treatment is different; however some may feel that that is justified, so that is most probably not a topic of discussion. however there is a feel that the "prefect race" is one distinct, even to the extent to be compared to the separation between GEP and the Special/Express course.. --> this is the opinion of a current non-prefect member of the enrolement of the Raffles Institution. just to let you know, not GE either, haha fancy language is.. sui generis? perhaps not.. but tt's not pertinant, it it? =P

True, once a person becomes a prefect, he loses his name and everyone starts addressing him as "Hey, Prefect!" --Terrancommander 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Prefect Elections are a farce. I believe that the board has a certain amount of people to reach, cause SO MANY people manage to get in. Think about it this way (I know it's extreme, but please don't shoot me down)

There are 15 nominees. Of these 15, the Board wants 10. Let us assume that the first 9 got 50 votes, the 10th got 1 vote, and the rest got none (I did say it was extreme.) The one with the 10th highest amount of votes WILL STILL GET IN, EVEN THOUGH HE ONLY GOT 1 VOTE! 218.186.12.228 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not neccesarily. Now, many people are suspecting that the votes are modified by the authorities. You can probably imagine the fustration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arani Lepenque Aes Sedai (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisms

This article is one of the most vandalised in wikipedia. Someone shld watch it. Or I will request for a couple of bannings.

It's far from the most vandalised, but it's getting bad. Yes, you should bring to admin's notice if the same users continue vandalising it. Alex.tan 08:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"Raffles Institution is an dependent boys' secondary choice school in Singapore. It is well known for being consistently ranked first from bottom among secondary schools in Singapore in the official annual school rankings published by the Ministry of Education. Raffles Institution was further recognised by the Ministry of Education in 2004 by being stripped of the School Excellence Award, among others. Most of them, went to Anglo Chinese School Independent, to which Raffles has lost many awards. This is also why ACS I has multiple awards of execellence, because of its own merit, and beacause it is better than RI.

Raffles Institution does not offer the Integrated Programme, or the Raffles Programme, together with Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) and Raffles Junior College. It also does not offer an internal Gifted Education Programme. These programs are offered in ACS (independent)

Founded in 2003 as Singapore Institution by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, the founder of modern Singapore, it is the school with the lousiest history in Singapore. " LOL sb vandalized this article!

I found this edit by an anonymous user oddly amusing:

==Popularity==

RI certainly seems to be the most popular secondary school in Singapore, perhaps due to the fact that it has plenty of influence by word-of-mouth. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see previously Primary 6 students clamouring to get into this school. Strangely enough, this has got nothing to do with results- RI and HCI are actually running neck and neck, so the school must have some sort of background appeal.

-ryan-d 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And with a vengence to carry with it. Go check the talk page on Singapore.. I think someone definitely has something with us here. haha. the vandal may have been from a rival school, but I won't point fingers. the stuff that has been vandalised probably is better off in Uncyclopedia. at least it would have gotten a few laughs.--Ariedartin 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Could be a result of jealousy. Anyway, check my contributions to Raffles Institution! --Terrancommander 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs have been adding nonsense stuff to the article. As they keep adding in the same points, I assume that they are the same person using different IPs, and therefore have warned the IPs using the tests template. If you want to include that fact, please provide a suitable physical source (newspaper/website/book) from which you got your points from. Do not just add in stuff and trick people into believing that it is real. --Terrancommander 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some hushed-up 'incidents' which occurred, apparently Terrancommander did not know of. If you are a member of RI of some form, you can ask the batch of 2004 about the cheating incident. Also, about the upskirt one you can ask batch of 2005.

Terran, you mentioned that I would need sources to add new stuff into the article, but what if those are witnesses instead of publications from the school. also, as those are 'shameful' incidents, i doubt if anyone would come forth and give their statements. Iamfromraffles 08:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, then it must be very hushed if I don't know about it. Anyway, if it's supposed to be hushed, I suppose its better not to blow the whistle, as it could be dangerous... There's a reason why its hushed up. And not only me, I bet if you just added it in that way without any reliable references or such, it could be dismissed as pure anti-RI sentiments and vandalism by other editors. --Terrancommander 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Request Protection.....218.186.9.1 09:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? Even if he doesn't know, does it mean other editors won't? Anyway, with incidents that have to be covered up, let it be. Besides, we are left without sources or any verifications to back those up, so what makes you think any incidents we put there will last? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates?

Is there any reason why the dates were de-wikified? As far as I know, majority of the articles on Wikipedia have dates (years, specific dates) wikified, I don't see why it shouldn't be the case here - fiveless 08:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

interesting note, perhaps someone will undertake to make that change, and if the need is great enough, to add a small note in the involved articles of these dates.

Flaming Here

Pls, do not verbally attack any people on this talk page. Any issues can be raised with less cursing.

Make note of the high-profile "Peeing in the lift" case dated 2001. An RI student was caught peeing in a lift in a bishan flat. Also, RI students are said, by bishan residents, to be rowdy and act like gangsters. They are said to litter and cause a disturbance.

Residents have reported to the principal MANY times but it never stopped. It was only until one resident finally wrote to the press. Then the RI boys stopped appearing. -Abc123iame

Well, all references must be cited. Find a newspaper article on it and we'll see. -ryan-d 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All complain! write to press! Write also no use. No one published. No one dared to publish the complain letters. MOE make sure they all keep quiet only. I try see if my grandmother (Live in bishan) got video of the cao keng students.-Abc123iame

Also heard from them that the student caught spray painting "Fuck RGS" was let off with a "Stern warning" Wonder why....218.186.9.1 06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging of streams

Should we include a section on the merging of the GEP and mainstream? This issue is a particularly hot issue among students in the school, as they feel that they should be able to keep their identities. Both mainstream and GEP students interviewed had felt that they would prefer to have the streams separated, but apparently Bob Koh did not ask for the students' opinions before initiating the merge. Most teachers disapprove of the merge, and there are even a few teachers who strongly oppose the merge. It seems that the merge is just decided by Bob Koh and the rest of the higher-ups. --Terrancommander 09:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If they are already merged, then it is worth mentioning since GEP is an important programme. However, I would leave out the details and the opposition. Just a sentence or two is sufficient. On the other hand, how about creating a section on "Academics" to provide an overview of the academic programmes in RI? It can describe the class size, school hours, streaming (?), examination, etc. Description of IP and GEP will fit nicely into this new section. Don't write too long though; you can refer to this article Caulfield Grammar School to decide on the level of details. Be bold and enjoy editing. ;-) --Vsion 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the merging of streams you are discussing? Is it the one which the curriculum of the two streams merge? Iamfromraffles 08:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Last time from 1985 (when GEP was introduced) all the way including Wong Siew Hoong's reign, curriculum and teachers were separated. But with the introduction of Bob Koh, now both of them are merged. This is because Bob Koh thinks that the GEP test is nonsense, and as long as you're good enough to go to RI, you're good enough to go to GEP. As such, the GEP branch has less "control" over RI/GEP, and very soon they'll be announcing the removal of GEP altogether. --Terrancommander 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In HM's assembly he said something about removing elitism (I wonder how he got the idea of GEP being elitist). Then "Raffles Academy" was created to cater to students who were better at the subject. Kinda stupid to remove one supposedly elitist group for one that specifically caters to the elite. Lkc159 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CLEANUP

Wow, this article has really changed since the last time I was here. There is WAY too much useless information, a lot of which I have just removed (minutae about the technological capabilities of the school's computers, for example, or for some OBSCURE reason, "Recently, the tennis team has won gold both for 'B' and 'C' Divisions. This has led the 22nd of May 2006 to be declared a school holiday, and all class lessons for that day were cancelled."

NO ONE needs to know these things. The article is way too long as it is. A lot can be cleaned up, e.g. the coat-of-arms section which is overly long-winded, or TRIVIA like "Raffles Institution has had a total of 24 headmasters and principals to date", or the current house standings. Now, I'm no longer in RI anymore so I can't really be bothered to get off my behind to clean up the article, so I'm going to leave it to you enthusiastic juniors. Do it, please.

Adding the cleanup template to the front of the article. --ryan-d 15:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Could the list of CCAs be removed? It's hardly encyclopaedic. Shifting the focus back to Raffles Institution, there has been an abundance of talents in RI track as well. takes things a little too far, IMHO. Some parts read like a brochure. - fiveless 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it. It makes the article unnecessarily long and doesn't provide any notable information particularly unique to RI. The SIG section might be worth keeping; the rest, however, should go. -ryan-d 13:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done some of the cleaning up... it is really a nightmare, with tons of irrelavant and repeated stuff. But I think the CCA list can stay lah, at least for now. Richardlu yy 14:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Try discussing achievements of the various CCAs, but don't turn it into an ad for sec1s. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you all that it may be the school's admin who are editing it? So of course it will be biased. As if the students know all these small details. --121.6.48.238 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid making baseless accusations. - SpLoT // 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Auspicium Melioris Aevi

A trite point here, but we always see "Auspicium Melioris Aevi" translated as "Hope of a Better Age". However, if you note, Merriam-Webster gives us "Omen of a Better Age" [1]. Furthermore, Auspicium is derived from avis (meaning 'bird') and specio (meaning 'look')[2][3] So why is it translated as hope of a better age? In fact, if we translate it, it's "Looking for a Better Age", not "Hope of a Better Age"; linguistically, there is no link to Hope.The Fascist 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did it derive from avis and specio? Auspicium is a word unto itself, and also gives us the English word "auspicious". Furthermore, the "Hope" in "Hope for a Better Age" can be noun, rather than a verb, hence letting it come closer to the meaning of "Auspicium". Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 16:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on your linguistics and your PIE roots before contending with me. "Auspicium" is derived ultimately from *awi- and *spek- which are in Latin avis and specio. And it doesn't matter whether it's a noun or verb. The point here is that the translation is inadequate. Furthermore, what do you mean by saying auspicium is a word unto itself? What word is not unto itself?[4]The Fascist 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic minutae aside, "Auspicium" has always been rendered as "Hope" in the case of the Raffles motto. I doubt RI or RJC will change that anytime soon, inadequate translation or otherwise. Consequently, while I'm sure you're a very good linguist, this discussion probably should be taken someplace other than this talk page. -ryan-d 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Fascist, you've just contradicted yourself. By your source, "auspicious" comes from "auspicium", which consequently means "of good omen", because it was derived from "sight of birds". Now, since "auspicium" has a definition, how can its meaning "of good omen" be irrelevant from "hope"? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your logic does not follow. Whether auspicium has a definition or not is not a premise for argument. The point still stands that it is badly translated as hope. Whether RI or RJC choose to admit that it is badly translated or otherwise is up to them. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia aims to provide information that is as accurate as possible. May I point out that hope and of good omen have entirely different meanings?

... Accurate, yes. Non-notable, no. What you are discussing is trivia. -ryand 06:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see here and here. Auspicium is defined as a sign, omen, divine premonition in the first, and a sign, omen, a divine premonition or token in the second. Now, I agree that it in itself does not equate to "hope", but in the context, it does. Nonetheless, the meaning of the motto is widely accepted as given, and this fulfil's Wikipedia's accuracy, hence there is no contention possible there. But you could use it under a trivia section, of course. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The motto was taken from another religious order, as I see from The Fascist's link. The difference is rather like the difference between "listen" and "hear". The religious orders are probably declaring to the effect: we are the signs that a better age is coming. The motto has become a relic.

The verb to hope is "sperare" (cf. English aspire, aspirate, Fr. espérer, Sp. and Pt. esperar), hence the verbal noun would be something like speratum and so forth (I'm only hypothesising, I'm more familiar with French than Latin). Even espiritus (containing the same root *-sp-*) could fit (ie. spirit of a better age). "but in the context, it does" is a rather weak assertion methinks ... see WP:HORSE. The difference is how one sees "hope": it's not so much as the abstract noun hope than having the pupils be the hope.

Oh, and it's not just linguistic trivia. I also suggest reading the links first. "Where did it derive from avis and specio?" is a good one. John Riemann Soong 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not an expert on the subject, then. :P Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to provide information that is as accurate as possible. Someone even said that earlier on. According to RI, Ausicium Melioris Aevi is translated as "HOPE of a better age". Thus, wouldn't leaving it as HOPE of a better age be more accurate? It IS what the school uses, after all. Lkc159 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Singapore, define Auspicium Melioris Aevi as Singaporeans do. Your dictionary is a new edition. RI was founded in 1821 when people still studied Latin and had the motto since then. Which is more accurate? --121.6.48.238 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. 'Auspicium' can never be translated as 'hope'. 'Spes' yes, not 'auspicium'. 'Auspicium' has a precise meaning. InfernoXV 04:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Please do not let this descend into an edit war. It can be attributed that Raffles Institution itself translates it (and has always translated it) as 'hope'. No other version can be verified officially, and hence no other version will be put on the article. Whether 'auspicium' should or should not be translated as 'hope' is an issue that is irrelevant and unrelated to this article, since the school's official stance has already been clarified. Hope you understand, SpLoT // 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the new version, which states both the official version as well as the reasoning behind the claim to mistranslation. However, beware that this issue could crop up again, since no consensus on the new version has been reached. I have tweaked it a bit, and am fine with it sticking around. Thanks, SpLoT // 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. It is true that RI itself translates it as 'hope', but nevertheless, simply because the school says it means 'hope' doesn't make it so. A mistranslation is a mistranslation, and this isn't a mere 'claim to mistranslation'. Lewis and Short, the Latin lexicon cited, is the standard reference work for all English-speaking Latinists. Twonked the tweak 'not', rather than 'not exactly'. InfernoXV 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately, Wikipedia is a compendium of published, in other words 'attributed', facts. That was my worry - that no source stated that this was a mistranslation. I personally do not doubt your expertise (clearly!), but I worry that the verifiability of those few sentences could cause disputes in the future. However, I deem this to be a minor, but tolerable, breach of our original research policy. - SpLoT // 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I see your point. Still, it seems to me that a dictionary/lexicon definition is sufficient. If one sees 'makan' (Malay for 'eat') translated as 'running on a treadmill', no matter how many times that mistranslation appears (due to ignorance of the language), a simple dictionary definition should be sufficient to prove it so. One does not need put up a webpage or published source which specifically states '"makan" means "eat", not "running on a treadmill", and can never mean that". A simple reference to a dictionary does not, I submit, constitute OR. InfernoXV 06:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken as well. - SpLoT // 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright well here's the thing. If auspicium is translated as an omen, then one should look into that definition more closely. Upon seeing that in context an auspicium is used in glad tidings and omens, one can see how it has been "translated" into hope since good omens stir hope in others. There are many other phrases that do not mean exactly what they seem to mean such as, "What's up?" In English this is said when addressing someone and asking if their day has gone well, but people from other countries often are confused as to why we say that greatness is above us. These slang terms are around in every language. I'm positive latin is no exception. For instance: "Diminimus Fringe," is a Latin phrase for "Don't sweat the small stuff," but it means diminished fringe in direct translation. Simple things like this can prove that a word is transcribed rather than translated into phrases at times, such as our lovely word auspicium in the phrase Auspicium Melioris Aevi. And that is my thought on the matter. ~jms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.1.205 (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"For instance: "Diminimus Fringe," is a Latin phrase for "Don't sweat the small stuff," but it means diminished fringe in direct translation." <- no, that's not what it means at all. if you don't know Latin, don't embarrass yourself - nobody cares what your thought on the matter is. InfernoXV (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

• There have been numerous jokes about the RI uniform being turned into Halloween costumes. The RI school uniforms look like party uniforms of the People's Action Party, The ruling party in singapore, and many singaporeans are fearful of PAP members.. Also, Their all-white uniforms were suggested to be used as a costume for a doctor, Also feared in singapore as medical fees in singapore are high.

Removed for being "Not Notable Enough" Halloween is an important holiday in the west (If not for kids, for the costume sellers). The east is also opening up to halloween. The festival is being taken so seriously that people can even hang up skeletons and other stuff, even if it gets police knocking at their door. Not notable enough? Hardly. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abc123iame (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 November 2006.

I was the one who reverted your edit, and I guess I should clarify my reasons for doing so. My contention was not that Halloween was non-notable, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. What I feel is that the "numerous jokes" you refer to are non-notable and unverifiable. The only source I can find for your claim are the two Talkingcock links, each of which only reference the RI uniform in a single sentence:

• MEN IN WHITE: Terrifying ghouls who possess people and make them do bizarre things against their will… (discount for R.I alumni if they bring in their old uniforms for exchange).
• How to Make Costume: Borrow school uniform from some R.I. kid

Neither of these references are particularly notable. For an example of jokes/parodies notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, see the Bak Chor Mee episode on the mrbrown article, which was a national phoenomenon and was even mentioned by PM Lee. Jokes about the RI uniform, on the other hand, are routine (I'm sure there are far more jokes about the NYGH uniform, for one) and are not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, unless something happens to make them otherwise (such as a documented claim of an extraordinary number of Singaporeans dressing up as RI students for Halloween, perhaps). -ryand 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol quite hilarious. Actually like an insult to RI students sia...218.186.8.13 08:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that's obvious. In the meantime, let's not go off topic. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I feel it can be considered vandalism, or probably an insult to RI. Let's leave it in it's current condition: gone.218.186.8.10 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

References

The Big Brawl-out @MOS!

This Tuesday (Nov 21) at the Ministry of Sound, two young men will put on their boxing gloves and fight till first blood, to vie for the place in the heart of the beautiful Siantzu Casteels.

Before a crowd of thousands, they will fight like men in the ring. The winner will be free to pursue Siantzu as his love interest, the loser will walk away from this triangle.

This fierce competition between the two mean shadows a larger than life institutional rivalry that has been present for so many decades - Rafflesians vs ACSians.

Just who will be the MAN and who will be the BOY? We will find out.

Be there when it happens at The Ministry of Sound and witness the showdown of the year.

Doors open 7.30pm till late. Best of Three Rounds Format - first match bell rings at 10.30pm sharp.[5]

Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.1 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 November 2006.

• The Rafflesian in question is from RJC, not RI. The whole thing's just a publicity anyway. Definitely doesn't deserve a place anywhere on Wikipedia, but I'm interested to know who wins :P -ryand 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a Wikipedian, it all falls down to how much publicity it generates to become locally notable to be put on the Raffles Junior College and Anglo-Chinese School articles. However, it is highly unlikely to be on Raffles Institution or even Ministry of Sound, the former because it is not RI-related and the latter because of the globalised nature of that MoS article which does not make MoS Singapore's events notable. Nonetheless, if there was a Ministry of Sound Singapore article, it could go there when it becomes notable. For now, it seems rather low-key. Let's wait.

But speaking as Siantzu's friend. I'm stunned, though it was a (very successful) publicity stunt anyway.Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It flopped. They got called out by their respective principals and the police. Haha. But the hype was incredible. -ryand 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed. Look at it this way, search "Siantzu" and you get some 720 results about her - mostly blogs. But of course, you have to consider the fact that at least half of the results are due to linking to her (now defunct) blog by schoolmates and friends.

I heard the event will be out on Sunday Times. Let's see if it does. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 04:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Text removal

I have boldly removed an extremely POV and unverified paragraph regarding the Sec 1 Orientation Camp.

Much to the disappointment of the seniors, PSLs are no longer allowed to incorporate push-ups in the camp as a form of punishment or make them do too many push-ups during morning physical training. Many believe this militarised regime is perhaps the most effective way in enforcing discipline in the Junior Rafflesians. This change resulted in feelings that each batch is turning weaker physically and mentally. The year 2005 was the supposedly 'slack' year, when the school decided to hold the orientation camp that year, and in future, in the school campus itself, with the Secondary 1 students sleeping in the school hall instead of the attap huts and dormitories in Sarimbun. Previous batches of Rafflesians endured the elements of nature, together with mud, dirt and sweat from themselves and the Rafflesians around them.

I know there'll be backlash, but for the sake of Wikipedia, please, this is not the place to put such opinions. Furthermore, in the next few weeks, I will cleanup (mostly remove) content which obviously fails verificability and does not contribute to the article on the whole. So please, keep your views on your own webspace, and don't start accusing me of anything. There's no problem with such opinions, but Wikipedia should strive towards neutrality. Thanks. - SpLoT | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You could have edited away the opinions and left the facts instead of doing it the easy way and deleting the whole thing. How you want to verify it also? You think the school gives out leaflets on this matter or it is in an online news article? If everything needs verification, we can just delete this entire article except for the school information (e.g. name, vision, motto). --121.6.48.238 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then go ahead and sieve through it. And make sure you attribute it too. That entire paragraph qualifies as WP:OR and WP:POV. - SpLoT // 07:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Courage to step out of the Comfort Zone

The problem is that pupils nowadays are becoming spoilt brats who are afraid to step out of the comfort zone. Now, for the Sec one orientation camp, I had a classmate who was too scared to sit on muddy ground because "It was too unhygenic", as he puts it. And, the lodgings was our classroom, which was air-conditioned! Really, the headmaster must establish methods to force students to step out of their comfort zone. Only thus will the students of Raffles Institution mature and be ready to face society. YseraOfDreams 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep personal opinion out of Wikipedia. This is a discussion about the article itself, not its subject matter or any miscellaneous rants. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. "Spoilt brats" is a subjective term. But what's wrong with stating facts like no more pumpings are allowed and lodgings are in the classrooms. Are those personal opinions? --121.6.48.238 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They aren't, but we try to keep everything attributed. - SpLoT // 07:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking

Um just asking.......... Does anyone think that the Rafflesian Principle of Honour should be posted up?SasoriAndDeidara 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. - SpLoT // 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In intellectual pursuit, I shall reflect discipline and passion for learning and in personal conduct, I shall live in integrity and regard individuals, groups and the community with kindness and respect, and in so doing, uphold the Rafflesian Principle of Honour. --121.6.48.238 18:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove "cleanup" tag

I think this can be removed? yes?Nigelfong 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No. -ryand 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? I think the article is no longer the mess it was when the tag was placed there. Not perfect either, but ok. Nigelfong 15:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Raffles Academy

Hi i don't have the time, but can someone add something on raffles academy? Quite an impt part that should be included. Nigelfong 16:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

School anthem

It was clearly stated in the text that the lyrics were written by E. Jesudason, the Headmaster from 1963 - 1966, so the likelihood that the lyrics still enjoy copyright protection is strong. I have thus deleted the lyrics once again. Note that a deleting editor does not have to prove it's inside copyright, it is the other way around. The onus of proof of whether a piece of text is copyrighted is upon the editor who wishes to insert it. Ohconfucius 04:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Copyright probably belongs to the school not the songwriter, an employee of the school at that time. As a student and prefect I think it would be in the interest of the school to have the lyrics inserted on Wikipedia. Can we have more comments on this before the lyrics are removed? Nigelfong 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that it is because of the contentious nature of the copyright holder that it is generally safer to remove than to keep. The copyright is by Jesudason by default, and since there are no documents to suggest otherwise, we have to assume that that is indeed the case. Song lyrics are copyrighted, and fair use only applies if some essential words are quoted. - SpLoT // 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishan JC?

although there seems to be talk on the internet about a proposed Bishan JC a long time ago, there isnt any real proof that i can find so far. should we consider taking that point down in the meantime? Twinscimitars (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

my bad- found something. link Twinscimitars (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

dr william tan

i dont want to keep changing the version back and forth. but why not put dr william tan in the notable alumni section? he even has a significant mention under the 'facilities' heading.Twinscimitars (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I missed the mention of William Tan under facilities - I think that should be removed as well. Quite simply, when 'notable' lists are cluttered with entries that should not quite make the cut, it sends a negative signal about how notable our alumni are - that we couldn't some up with anyone better. This is especially apparent when we compare Dr. William Tan to the rest of the notable alumni list, which mostly consists of truly notable people in politics, business, etc. More generally, putting in marginal information, whether in notable alumni lists or in the facilities entry or elsewhere, is detrimental to the readability of the article as well as the impression that readers get of Raffles Institution.

I'll hold off on removing the mention of William Tan from the facilities entry, but I think that is also justified. Maggimee (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gymnasium

It says here that RI is going to be used for training of gymnastics for the 2010 Youth Summer Olympics. Is that going into this article? ~Milnivri~ 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm baffled as to how this school was assessed as being of low importance. It is the oldest school in Singapore with a president and a prime minister amongst its alumni. Lots of books have been written about the school too providing ample sources. I have upgraded it to top importance. Dahliarose (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point there. I concur that low importance won't do, but I don't think it warrants top importance, especially considering the other very major articles that are in that category. Reassessed as high. - SpLoT // 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. Mistook the school project reassessment for a Singapore noticeboard reassessment. Duly reverted. Regards, SpLoT // 05:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Raffles Junior College article

With the merger, should we combine back the articles of RI and RJC, just like the article on Hwa Chong Institution? Then if there's need for distinction we shall follow the style written in that article, namely the Secondary School section and Junior College section. --Russianroulette2004 (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Suggestion on merger of Raffles Junior College article into this page placed on the top of this article. PLEASE provide your honest feedback to make this a smooth transition. I know that no one actually agrees to it but we need to remain objective here. --Russianroulette2004 (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One question might be, to what extent are these two really now the same establishment? The article says "Their academic curricula remain separate; the merger involves the schools' administrative and corporate functions". I notice that, so far at least, there are still two separate websites, so the "public face" they are presenting is that they are still two institutions. So as long as the two WP articles continue to cross-reference each other where appropriate, I am not sure that I really see the need to merge them. Alarics (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point of time, information on the aftermath of the merger remain vague, even to students in either institutions (we were told that there would be "no significant change"). I think both articles should be kept separate for now to avoid contradiction. Chenzw  Talk  12:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable or non-notable? NPOV, etc.

My entire edit was reverted by a non-registered user (IP address) who wrote "removal of notable truths, and addition of non-notable facts is not needed)".

You should only edit the bits you believe after due consideration are not appropriate. Part of what I did was cleaning things up according to WP rules e.g. for date format and excessive or duplicate wikilinking. Please learn Wikipedia rules before reverting other people's edits.

I also removed some NPOV stuff. Most Wikipedia school articles suffer from POV boasting about how wonderful the school is. They constantly have to be toned down to become encyclopaedic. This one is no exception. In an encyclopaedia, facts should be stated in a neutral tone. Adjectives like "world-renowned" are not "notable truths".

I added a para about LKY and a link to his book about his relationship to Raffles and corporal punishment. I should have thought that was highly notable since he is the country's founding father. Alarics (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way: "notability" does not refer to the content of an article, only to whether the article's existence is justified at all. So the comment "addition of non-notable facts is not needed" doesn't mean anything. You might mean "addition of facts we don't like to talk about in public is faintly embarrassing to the school" but Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, and a Wikipedia article about a school does not "belong" to those who attend or run the school or identify with its interests. Alarics (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)