Talk:St Cuthbert's Society, Durham

President's list removed

What was the reasoning behind removing the list of past presidents and principles? + Why include either of them at all? Too Much Information. And it smacks of desperation. Do other self-respecting collegiate bodies in Durham and further afield bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.254.74 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is part of the distinctive history of Cuths - unlike more recent upstart Collegiate bodies - that it is represented more by its people (including Principals, and perhaps especially its Presidents) than by buildings.OldFaw (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

smacks a bit of amateurishness.

Comments (especially snide comments) should always be signed. Read the history of Cuths ( e.g. Tudor, Henry, St. Cuthbert's Society, 1888-1988 : the history of 'a modest but exciting institution in the University of Durham') and you will see the point of my earlier remark John Hamilton (OldFaw) (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dcb0sr" has made several changes, mostly constructive, but remains anonymous John Hamilton (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity is not banned and is barely even frowned upon in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the user isn't particularly anonymous - that is quite clearly a Durham username, and dcb is the departmental code for St Cuthbert's Society; dcb0sr appears to be Sharon Richardson, senior tutor of Cuth's. TSP (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Most "outsiders" have no knowledge of Durham codes, but it seemed likely to me that this anonymous contributor probably has some direct connection to the University/the Society, and that his/her contributions come from an authoritative source. It is good to know that this appears to be so. I agree that Wiki contributions should be judged by their merit, rather than by who makes them. But the source has some relevance, especially when someone else contemplates making an alteration. John Hamilton (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dcb0sr is a Senior Propaganda officer of the St.Cuthbert's Society Minitrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenz diefenbach (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Principals & Presidents

On 18 August 2008 "Deiz" removed the lists of Principals and Presidents - see revision "history". The list of Presidents (going back to the foundation of the Society), in particular, is not available elsewhere as far as I am aware, now that the history of the Society is out of print.

It does not seem to me that Wiki rules require such drastic action - the notes about lists of names are guidelines not rules. I therefore propose to undo this revision to give an opportunity for discussion before historic information is lost. John Hamilton (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the need. I concur with the anonymous person above. It smacks a bit of Too Much Information. I fully take the point that - historically - Cuths was more dependent on its Presidents than other colleges but I don't think it needs to be set our here. And unless the Principals (and their predecesors the Censors were particulary distinguished individuals on a national scale (I don't think they were) nor do they. Wiki is, after all, public information rather than a private archive but I do agree the information should be recorded somewhere. I can't believe anyone is so desperate for this information that they need to source it here. Doubtless there are copies of Henry Tudor's book in the Cuths and University libraries and other copyright libraries. And so far as I recall neither list was even complete! Lonstan (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I invited "Deiz" to explain why he had singled out this Cuths article and had not felt the need for a similar deletion of the lists of Masters/Principals of other Colleges, whether in Durham or elsewhere. He has not taken the opportunity to explain his action here. But, although I still hold that this is an unnecessary and over-officious interpretation of Wiki policy, I have not sought to restore these lists again after he reversed my reinstatement of them. I have no wish to start a bad-tempered, puerile "war" - and at least I gave an opportunity for discussion of his changes to the article.

No doubt much of the information contained in many other Wiki articles is not "desperately" needed, Lonstan; but in many cases - including in this article, I suggest, its inclusion can be justified in terms of offering information about a topic that is as complete and up to date as possible. (The only other source of part of this deleted information - Henry Tudor's book - is now out of date by a decade or more.) It might be argued that the history of, and background information about, St Cuthbert's Society is of no importance to anyone but present and former members of this college... but that would be an entirely subjective opinion, and an opinion that could equally apply to a very large number of Wiki articles - and certainly to the articles on the other Durham colleges.

Perhaps these over-officious and self-appointed "editors" of Wiki articles should concern themselves more with correcting inaccuracies and lapses of spelling or grammar, so as to improve an article. And, unless there is a very clear and important breach of Wikipedia policy, they might at least have the courtesy to use the talk/discussion pages before removing accurate information from an article because of their subjective view of its relevance or importance.John Hamilton (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't state this clearly enough - Wikipedia is not your society directory or clubhouse. While editors are free to enforce WP policies and guidelines when they come across problems, they are under no obligation to then scour every similar article to restore balance to the universe. This does not, however, give anyone the right to reinclude inappropriate content. The lengthy diatribe(s) above was/were cleary written out of love for your old society, but also with a great deal of misunderstanding of WP policy and practice. If any of these people were bluelinked, they could of course be included. That your society records are "out of print" is not a rationale as to why Wikipedia should host inappropriate content. Deiz talk 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Deiz, for giving some reasons (on this occasion, unlike the previous one) for your renewed editing of this entry. Naturally you cannot be expected to edit the entries for all the colleges of all universities; but many (if not most) other colleges include lists of their Masters/Principals, whether or not the individuals in the lists are "bluelinked" for other reasons. It is unclear to me why inclusion of such a list should be regarded as "inappropriate content" and "against WP policies" for this particular college but seems to be the norm for the Wikipedia articles on the other colleges of Durham - and also of other universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge.John Hamilton (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that what has brought attention on this page is the sheer enormity of the list of past Presidents. Arguably, being principal of a notable institution such as this intrinsically makes you notable, so I personally don't really object to the list of Principals; holding a one-year - or for the first 98 entries, one-term - elected position doesn't, I think. Just because this information is not anywhere else, doesn't mean it should be here. (See Wikipedia is not a web host; Wikipedia is not a directory; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.)

Each article needs to be taken on its own merits, though. You can't argue that a given page should be able to keep it's list until all other pages have removed theirs, because they could then argue the same thing, and nothing could ever be edited. TSP (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Every edit I have made to this page was accompanied by an edit summary which explained my actions. I know it's a reflex action to take a defensive tone when encountering an edit which you feel negatively affects an article you edit frequently or have a strong interest in, but - like, I would hope, all administrators and experienced editors - a friendly request for clarification is all that's required to find out why a given edit was made. You could make an argument that principals of universities are notable, but it's harder to do for principals of individual societies. It's likely that many who have risen to the post of principal of a university or a notable society will meet WP:PROF, but this still requires verification rather than assumption, and is separate from the issue of roll-calling a bare list of unlinked names or other entities, which is discouraged by various policies and guidelines in any article. Deiz talk 04:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely, however, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, here to provide information for anybody interested. I, as a current student at St Cuthbert's Society, AM very interested in who are past principals and presidents are. You may make the comment that somebody with an elected term is not important enough to be listed, but if you understood the importance of the Society President to the history and structure of our Society, you would think very differently. They are listed because they are crucial components, without which we would not be the body we are today. Collegiononcollegium —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegiononcollegium (talk • contribs) 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And as a former student of Cuths (and a History student for that matter) I heartily agree with Deiz. Individuals who served for sometimes only a single term, over a century ago, in what was then little more than a debating-and-rowing society do not, surely, qualify alongside the Master (or Principal) of a college for inclusion? (And I'm not sure they need be included either). In addition to which, my own personal view is that in adding so much arguably worthless material, we appear slightly desperate, and hence rather LESS significant than we are. (Just take a look at some of the self-important but in reality petty profiles out there in Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.) The point about being sui generis and semi-autonomous from the university is an important one but it is made within the text of the article. Let it suffice. Less is more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonstan (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but you are both missing the mark here. There is no need for consideration or opinion of the "importance" or "significance" of these individuals - it is Wikipedia policy and guideline not to list unlinked, non-contextual lists of anything. Lists such as this are a matter of record for the society, not an encyclopedia. If articles exist about any past presidents, please bluelink them in to your hearts content. Deiz talk 12:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I would point out to Deiz that no similar action has (yet?) been taken to remove the lists of Masters from other colleges of Durham or of other universities (for example Hatfield College or University College Durham). St Cuthberts seems to have been singled out because the list of Presidents took up a conspicuously larger amount of space. Presumably a list only of the Society's Principals would not have drawn attention to itself, or have provoked the same diligent and righteous pruning? Nevertheless, if it is such an important aspect of Wikipedia policy, I do not understand why the same action has still not been taken against the entries for other colleges.John Hamilton (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would direct you to my comment above about there being no burden for editors applying policies to immediately scour other articles for similar problems and restore balance to the universe. That other articles breach policy does not make it OK for others to do so. I think the bible had a similar line on things. If you find an unlinked list with no citations or qualifying information anywhere on Wikipedia, feel free to remove it. Deiz talk 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As a former Cuth's student and occasional Wikipedia editor, I agree with the action to remove the list of past presidents. Yes the work of the presidents is important within this small community, but zooming out to a global scale, they're ultimately winners in a popularity contest of undergraduates, and as such are not notable by Wikipedia's definitions. By all means, if any of the well known figures who attended Cuth's can be confirmed to have held exec positions then perhaps that would make interesting comments next to their links, but as it stood that list was wholly unnecessary. You wouldn't expect a list of all the Head Boys/Girls of your school to be on its page would you? If someone could write something about the recent addition of housing to Cuth's that would be welcome, as my understanding is that Cuth's is no longer only a Bailey college. Also a brief, non-partisan section on the University's push to make Cuth's a college would be interesting. I would write these if I had access to all the facts but I left in 2002. Cheers, --PaulWicks (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations/References

Does anyone know where additional references are needed and why this was added? - see the banner at the top of the main article. John Hamilton (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Presumably for information such as the formation year, and to add inline citations. I've just added a lot of information and referenced it all to the handbook from this year, which is available online on the JCR's website (and a reliable source). As such, I'm removing the template as there's no unverified claims - I was going to add some stuff about the reputation of the Society too (I think it's important to mention how colleges are perceived by others, and while some colleges certainly lack a reputation, Cuth's does have one), but Grey College have removed my reference source from their website, so it'd be slightly unverified. Esteffect (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sabbatical President of the Student Body

Following a decision at the Society Council, the title of the President has been changed from "of the Society" to "of the student body". This was agreed between the current President and the Principal and approved by Council. The title change was necessary as the President is not responsible for the running of the Society.

At the next meering of Society Council it was pointed out that this was beyond the remit of Society Council and that this sort of change would require a change in the JCR Constitution which could only be enacted following a referendum of the JCR membership. Hence the correct title remains President of the Society as the position is called in both the JCR Constitution and the President's Contract and there have been no moves within the JCR to change this.

- I believe the motion to change the title was put forward to the JCR in 2012/2013 but was resoundly rejected by the JCR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.92.146 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Tidy-up of 21 Jan 10

I've taken the liberty of removing a lot of superfluous information most of which was added in over 20, repetitive, ungrammatical and poorly-spelled contributions added between 1.20 and 2.35 in the morning of 02 December 2009. Firstly, just cos it appears in the JCR Handbook, doesn't mean it shld be on Wiki, which is an outward-facing, internationally-used, reference source; a sort of encyclopedia, if you like. This isn't a private conversation, and the world is not interested in whether the JCR has a gaming machine or that it sings "Oh Van Mildert Didn't Want Me". Other questionable additions included:

TRIVIAL "The latter, officially named Brooks Bar and Café, has a more relaxed atmosphere than the Bailey bar but is still often frequented by those living in the surrounding accommodation." Come on guys, who cares? This is just far too much (trivial and uninteresting) detail.

SOLIPSISTIC Several unexplained references to Parsons Field. Where?? No one outside Durham - maybe even outside Cuths - knows where that is. Even I've never been to Parsons Field or knows what it signifies.

EMBARRASSING "well-knon for its two bars... due to their offering the University's lowest drinks prices and earliest opening times." Do we really need this? It comes across as immature, adolescent and embarrassing.

SOLIPSISTIC AND EMBARRASSING "Cuth's Bar is popular on the bar crawls of other colleges and many societies. The "college drink" is a Brownie Bomber, and both of Cuth's bars are the cheapest at the University. The bars also have the distinction of being the only college bars to open early in the afternoon, with an opening time of 2PM during the week and around midday at weekends." This is cringe-making.

TIME-SENSITIVE "including one of the most successful college rugby teams within the University." No doubt but this sort of info that can change from one season to the next has no place here; it's supposed to be an encyclopedia not a newsletter.

Oh, I've also added links to Jevons and Heawood, things we can be proud of. Sorry to seem so bossy but it did need some work.

College vs Society/Collegiate Body

I can find no reference in any of the university's literature which makes St Cuth's a college rather than a collegiate society. While there is only subtle difference between the two, the difference IS important to the culture of St. Cuths.

Meals

Hild bede offers a self catered option, Hatfield certainly used to offer part catered. Can anybody evidence the claims that WERE there of only college to offer three meal options? I know other colleges do not advertise them as well as cuth's do but they are there.

Tone & Unreferenced content

This article reads, in places, like a brochure for the society, rather than a wikipedia entry. There are only 5 sources, 4 of which are the St Cuthbert's JCR page of Dur.ac.uk. Only two of the sources (3 and 5) actually contain the material they are sources for. I am preparing a large clean up, which I will implement in segments across the article.SPACKlick (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly at a loss as to how to evidence the 'scholarly-ness' of Jevons and Heawood. Given that they each have their own Wiki pages which disclose their extensive authorship and / international reputations, does it not speak for itself? Your advice welcome... Lonstan (talk)

That particular citation needed was in reference to them having been early members/censors of the college/society. SPACKlick (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can do. Lonstan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

Also note, not one of the alumni is referenced, and the only reference I can find for alumni is Leo Blair, Tony's Dad. Any references at all for the rest of them?SPACKlick (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

<SIGH> Is it REALLY necessary?? It is not universal practice - as a few moments looking at Oxford college alumnni will substantiate. Indeed, it seems that if you set up a page Entitled 'Alumni of X College, Y University', it isn't required at all. It is easy just cruising around flagging up requirements for other people to sort out, however. If it's an outrageous assertion then by all means challenge or remove it, but otherwise can't we just let some things stand?

Just because many pages follow bad practice does not make it good practice. I attempted to find reputable sources for the entire list, I came up short. These lists should be referenced wherever possible, especially with respect to living persons. SPACKlick (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have introduced a number of citations where I was able, although there are still one or two outstanding. If anyone can think of how to evidence the fact the bailey colleges have a tendency to be more traditional, by all means step in! On the above point, I have to say I agree with Anon. I have looked widely: at other Durham colleges, at colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, UCL, Harvard, Yale, almost NONE of which have citaions for alum. (LSE has some but many of them are simply references to their own website which I do not consider to be an objective source even if true.) As such I don't think it can reasonably be regarded as "bad practice"; it is almost universal practice. Why should there only be a single way or doing things in any case - there manifestly isn't, it's not the Encyclopaedia Britannica, so on that basis I too have taken the liberty of removing the citations banner over the alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonstan (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You have introduced 2 citations and barely started to clear up the article, but I am dilligently hunting more. As for Alumni citations...where living people are concerned it should be cited clearly that they are members of an insitution whether that institution is academic or political, if you cna find links to Cuth's site claiming them as members that is a valid source. But if neither biographies of the person nor any part of the university or college documentation references them then it is unreferenced material and should be purged from the article.SPACKlick (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Much as I admire your zeal, I think you're asking a lot of people to devote so much of their time to such labour-intensive detail. I'm also not wild about your use of the word "purged" and, to be frank, don't care much for your tone in general. So, with respect, I think I shall leave you to carry on the good work as you see fit. Lonstan (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone of my last note, I was in a foul mood when I wrote it and it came out as overly officious. I am still searching for any references to the alumni being members of the college and will be looking through some paper records in Durham this weekend. I know it's a big ask but so is everything on wikipedia. I shall hopefully be making some more updates this weekend and then moving on tot he other colleges. SPACKlick (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

References