Talk:Haberdashers' Adams

School Prospectus
This article reads like a bad school prospectus. It is supposed to be an enclopedia article - would a casual reader care who is Head of House/CCF/Senior boarding?? No. Its a very weak article that makes the school look bad. 109.156.17.228 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC) ON82

Bad Article
Much of this article, as it reads makes little to no sense: "The school, including the sixth form, has approximately 800 pupils HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex with also the unveiling of a bust of William Adams, the founder of the school." What does that mean? Nothing (*profanity removed).

Also, the section 'School life' is written in an incredibly convoluted way, making it difficult to decipher what it actually means. Additionally, I would suggest this section is overall void of significance, and that it should be removed, and any 'vital' information incorporated into other sections. This shouldn't take long, since the only interesting part is that about Dr Pack being AI chair; which only reinforces my point that the section contains nothing at all to do with 'school life'. And what the fuck is a "boetician", I can't even begin to guess at what that was supposed to read, and I am forced to assume that it was made up by a pupil with pitiful delusions of intelligence and significance, flaws which, while permanent and damaging, he is not personally responsible for. He, like all the others who enter this institute of sin as normal, happy humans, and leave it with the characteristic pretentious arrogance; victims of the systematic reinforcement of mediocrity perceived as success; victims of the vitiate teachers who take it upon themselves to preach amelioration, but in reality do nothing but encourage the embracing of Pride and Greed, superiority and debauchery.

On the more mundane topic of housekeeping, I took the liberty of removing the line "It is considered by many to be the best school in the country." This was because the line is untrue. While not a bad school in the usual sense, no sane person could consider it the best school in the country. It generally receives good exam results, but the extra-curricular activities in particular fall far short of those in most private schools. This line appears to have been added in an attempt to make the school look better than it is to prospective parents. I reiterate that it is not true, and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia.

In the "History" article there are no references. Perhaps this should be renamed "Invented and irrelevant bullshit". I severely doubt that Adams' history formed the basis for Miss Havisham as was so tenuously intimated. I would be interested in hearing from whence or from whom this "fact" originated.

The general malaise with which this article was put together is quite stunning considering the amount of work which must have gone into it. Misspellings, grammar misuse (ironic I'm sure) and failure to cite references abound. Indeed in one place the line "listed below as a reference" is used in lieu of a proper reference, this would have taken considerably longer to write than simply using the reference tag.

And now we arrive at the cesspool of ignorance, which has here been named 'Notable alumni'. I fail to see how the following people qualify as 'notable', bearing in mind that the term means "people you might conceivable give a toss about": Peter Butler; Jeremy Corbyn; Thomas Hanmer; Charles Sylvester Horne (this one is really scraping the barrel- MP for Ipswich nearly 100 years ago?); Peter Price; Tom Pym (may or may not be good at chess, clearly wrote his article himself, has achieved nothing); Frank Armstrong (seriously, he's assistant commissioner????? Oh wait, NOBODY GIVES A SHIT!). Also, readers are expected to believe that Sir Oliver Joseph Lodge "invented" Birmingham University. Did a blind, retarded baboon write this article?

I have tagged this article appropriately, and must request that these are not removed until the issues raised above are dealt with. Tomob57 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with most of what you say. Re Oliver Lodge - it doesn't say he invented birmingham university, it doesn't say he founded it either - he was an inventor but he was also head of birmingham university. I don't know how to sign comments on here. NT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.9.31 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

to sign put four tildes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomob57 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand some of your points Tomob57, and whilst they are valid, such anti-Adams' rhetoric is not. The very stating of this shows your clear bias against the school, which although not what it once was is not a "cesspool of ignorance". Such claims should be vehemently opposed by the wikipedian community as the fabrication of rhumor and superstition. We are a truthful enclyclopedia - not an article in the Oxford Tab. Tjcross31 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ripchord
are eligible for being notable allumni they are a signed successful pop band.

http://www.nme.com/artists/ripchord

they are successfull in their field and should be included.


 * Would suggest citing them; link their name on the page to the NME article, maybe. Or, perhaps, create a proper Wikipedia page for Ripchord themselves, and see how that stands regarding vanity pages, etc. If it's OK-ed, then they can stay, and the names can link through to the page, rather than being un-linked text. Don't take me as gospel, mind, I'm no huge contributor myself, so I might be suggesting something that'll just annoy everyone. Still, it's worth a thought, and things are easier to justify on here if they have proper links and references. --JTA 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously have a different view of success to me. I would have thought being successful would have meant at least one charting Top 40 (at the very very bare minimum). There are a lot of signed bands around who go nowhere and do nothing but fade into obscurity - I really don't see how Ripchord, The Fight or the Raging Palmsta's are any different. To justify inclusion because of an appearance in a low circulation newspaper is preposterous. I say Ripchord should go along with the Raging Palmsta's and the Fight. -- GN
 * You may find WP:MUSIC helpful in deciding if bands are notable. &#8211; drw25 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoah! Whoah! Hold the phone here, the ragin palmstas are critically acclaimed, theyv had a song featured on a channel 4 ident and are performing at glasto this year, i mean just listen to the music, www.myspace.com/raginpalmstas and to be fair this GN character sounds like he knows sweet Fuck All about music so stick to your own areas of expertise..

Longford Hall
Additional info to be added to the AGS page. Longford Hall built in 1785 for Ralph Leeke, designed by Joseph Bonomi (1739-1808), who had worked with Robert and James Adam.


 * See Longford Hall... David ON

House symbols
Clive has the elephant as it's symbol but what do the other three houses use (if they do)? David ON


 * I'm not sure any of the others do...


 * Webb certainly doesn't, and in seven years I never came across one for Darwin or Talbot. Perhaps we can nick the Hogwarts ones? Darwin have so got to be Slytherin--LukeSurl 17:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny, I always had it as Gryffindor-Clive, Slytherin-Webb, Hufflepuff-Talbot and Ravenclaw-Darwin. You know I'm right.  You just happened to be placed  i n the wrong house...  And on the topic of symbols, I'm sure at least the Talbot noticeboard has some unmemorable coat of arms on it or something. &#8211; drw25 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Unmemorable! Thanks Warren... Maybe we should now adopt a picture of Mr. Robins, the esteemed new Head of House... Or not. Neil Fairbrother

Mister JTA (ON)
 * Unofficially, Talbot used to have the Talbot family Crest, but I imagine that's gone by the board in the absence of BKB... O, and just for referrence: Talbot's Gryffindor, Darwin's Slytherin, Clive's Ravenclaw, and Webb's Hufflepuff. (I'm just about willing to re-negotiate Gryffindor/Ravenclaw with Clive, but Darwin and Webb have to be those two...)


 * Oooh, I remember now that at the end of year 7 for me (thats 1999) Mr Hadley determined that the Webb symbol was, in honour of our departing house captain Geoff Worth, the Worth family crest, and that the motto was to be simply "Worth". However neither ever caught on, and it would have been our year (the class of 2005) who would be the last generation of pupils to remember this. --LukeSurl 17:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Neil Fairbrother
 * There is a crest on the Talbot noticeboard, but it was stuck on, on a piece of laminated paper... I know because I looked after the board for the past year or so. And is it just me, or was Talbot named after John Talbot, not Charles Talbot? Maybe JTA may be able to help me on this, he was in Talbot too...

Yep. Sir John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury - fought at Agincourt, I think. Charles Talbot was much later; we're named after the original guy, who died in battle in France and whose soldier's were so devoted to him they stood over his body fighting back the French 'till the end of the battle, so he could be taken away and buried on English soil. (See, I paid attention in BKB's assemblies...) Dunno who on earth Charles Talbot is, though. Mister JTA

Shamrock pirates vanity>?
How are the shamrock pirates non notable? i beleive they ar more famous than ANY of the other people on a list. plus i have almost now affiliation with the band so vanity WTF?
 * I doubt your opinion will be supported by the vast majority of the Wikipedia community. &#8211; drw25 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
OK...I think we might have gone over the 3 revert rule now, so I don't really want to do it again... What are the next steps?&#8211; drw25 (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, reckon you are right. I've asked for some help. See Requests_for_page_protection  - Naturenet | Talk 11:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Page protected as per request. Note that the 3RR explicitly states that reverting vandalism is excempt, but even so its not beneficial to anybody and page protection is best. Thryduulf 12:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous Rugby
I'm going through instances of the use of links to "rugby" and disambiguating them. Could someone unlock this page and disambiguate the single link on here, please? Thanks! Rugby union is appropriate. I edited your comment (sorry) to remote its links, as I spend a lot of time disambiguating "rugby" and the extraneous links from talk pages make it slightly harder. -Arch dude 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tonywalton (now I've remembered to log in!)

Removing "selective" from first line.
I reverted an edit made by 88.111.85.58. "Selective" means the same as "grammar" and the selectivity is discussed in the second paragraph. --LukeSurl 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

founded in 1422?
The latest edit has suggested Adams' was first founded in 1422 and then re-founded in 1656. Having been at the school for 7 years and never hearing of this, and given the amount of vandalism on this page I am suspicious of this and have reverted the edit until someone can verfy this. --LukeSurl 10:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the source quoted by the anonymous contributor, there's no reference to the old school being on the AGS site, or anything linking the two. Seems to me that it's just an unrelated, older school. &#8211; drw25 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) In answer to your question on the history page, Adams Grammar School has not always been called Adams Grammar School. In the same way that Monmouth Grammar School changed its name to become Monmouth School in the 1970's or Shrewsbury Grammar School became Shrewsbury School, Adams has changed its name. Being known at various times as Newport School (not to be ::confused with various American namesakes or the one in Monmouthshire), Newport Grammar School (not to be confused with its namesake in Essex), Newport Free School, Newport Free Grammar School, even the Latin School at Newport Salop (as the former victorian headmaster Tom Collins called it). So it is very possible to have a school called Newport School that was refounded in 1656.


 * Additionally you will notice that this school founded in 1442 was given £5 from the revenues of Crown land in 1581 which continued to be received by Adams after 1656 - that is a fairly obvious link. It is also not terribly difficult to see that Adams might be on the same site, it is across the road from a church, all schools of the time would have been strongly linked to the church and later accounts of Adams list the Curate as receiving a salary from the school. Thus Adams would have been very similar in constitution to the previous school - but with a greater endowment.


 * It is not unknown for schools, universities or businesses to merge and claim the oldest date of foundation. Aside from that it states that Adams was refounded in 1656. The re being rather significant, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The school claims its date of founding to be 1656 (see the very top of the schools' website). (This is quite siginifcant as thousands are currently being spent on 350th anniversary celebrations). As far as I can tell the evidence you present is very circumstantial and this source appears to date from the C18th. Once again, I will revert this statement until someone can verify this.

The definitive history of the school is a book called "Mr Adams' Free Grammar School" (ISBN 1860772218) by David and Ruth Taylor. Someone should get this. (but not me, I'm a poor student)--LukeSurl 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to revert this for the third and final time WP:3RR. Please don't take that as an insult, I present my reasons below:


 * This page has suffered a large amount of vandalism and so I am very suspicious of any edit I can't verify. The shred of evidence you present is not enough to convince me that the school which for seven years I walked through gates with "1656" marked on them to enter every weekday, is over 200 years older than this.


 * Furthermore, the IP which you had when you made your edit, which appears to be an AOL IP address, has been frequently used to commit vandalism. I would be more able to trust the edits of someone who has a registered account and can see that they have a history of useful contributions to Wikipedia. As an AOL user whose IP address changes frequently it is impossible to track down an edit history.


 * I would like to echo Drw25's comments above. Please give hard and not circumstantial evidence to make such a bold claim. Evidence the 1656 only stance can be found on the school's page and also the BBC Shropshire Town guide:


 * "Another notable building in Newport is Adams’ Grammar School. The school was founded by William Adams, a merchant haberdasher, in 1665."


 * The Haberdashers' website also uses language which does not support the re-founding hypothesis:


 * "William Adams, a merchant Haberdasher with family connections in Shropshire, established his school in Newport, Shropshire in 1656 during the Interregnum, with permission from Oliver Cromwell."


 * In short I have never seen any evidence that supports what you say. I have seen plently of evidence that appears to contradict it. Please provide evidence. --LukeSurl 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Luke's stance on this. I too was highly suspicious for exactly the same reasons. It would be odd for the school to suggest its founding year was 200 years after the true date. I thought I'd remark that the revert previous to Luke's was from the same IP address as many of the 'Shamrock Pirates' edits, so don't blame the original contributor for it! I may be able to locate Dr. Taylor's book using the library in which I work, or alternatively I could always get the copy from the Bod next term... &#8211; drw25 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was a separate school founded in Newport in 1442 by Thomas Draper - it was attached to a St. Mary's Guild/College/(St. Marys Road/Street?)- it became The Royal English Free School at some point and then ceased to exist in 1879.

dubious provenance but seemingly accurate and interesting: http://www.newport.enta.net/newport/breif1.html early history of said school: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=39950

Mild vandalism to alumni list, and question
I've just removed a couple of questionable alumni from the list - one person listed as having won the "I AM A TWAT" prize, another for being a champion of some video game. Also, the last few entries on the alumni list are not in alphabetical order. I would have fixed it but I'm not at all certain they're actually notable enough to be included in the list in the first place. Help?

Thanks, Jessicapierce 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that Ripchord are notable, because they're signed to a real record label. Although last time somebody wrote an article about them, they were deemed non-notable.  The Fight already survived VfD.  Not convinced about Denatured, though - Google doesn't bring up anything about them.  I'll alphabeticise the list with Ripchord in and Denatured out. &#8211; drw25 (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One questionable alumnus, the first Earl Gower. Any evidence he attended this school?  The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Complete Peerage both record his education being at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford University, which he entered 1710.Cloptonson (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I also question two alleged alumni. In his wiki article Robert Charnock's pre-university education is not mentioned in his DNB article, the sole cited source so I have put a citation need against the mention of the school in his wiki article. Keith Jones the Dean of York is stated in his wiki article and Who's Who to have been educated not at Newport but Ludlow Grammar School.Cloptonson (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

History of School, etc
Just bought Dr Taylor's history of the school. I will add more details from it as I go along. So don't delete what I have just added. Cheers. Oh as an aside the school according to Dr Taylor did claim to founded in 1422 up during the 1920's & 1930's. As usual feel free to tart the english and grammar up.

Science block
The stuff about the new science block should certainly not be under Background, in the unlikely event that it should be included at all. Salopian (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adams' Grammar School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221045024/http://www.adamsgs.org.uk/documents/pageDocuments/news/AGSNewsletterWeek13.pdf to http://www.adamsgs.org.uk/documents/pageDocuments/news/AGSNewsletterWeek13.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.edubase.gov.uk/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=123593

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Houses
The information about houses was absolute nonsense, claiming that Clive, Darwin and Talbot went back to the 19th century! I've corrected it and am completely certain of everything I put, but I did not look for any sources. Someone else can do that if they want to. Salopian (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And why should we believe you? Since, as you put it in your summary, you "cannot be bothered to find sources to cite" why should you expect us to do it? I don't know which version is correct, but if you wish to change the current content you will have to source it. Meters (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the existing unsourced founding date claims as well. Meters (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I amended the section as follows, as well as correcting three instances of '19c' to '1989' in the table:

Adams' operates an extra-curricular house system and is the basis of inter-house sports competitions, traditionally a source of pride for pupils of their respective houses (now all named after Shropshire-born notables). Up to 1989, the school was divided into Aston, Chetwynd and School houses, with Aston and Chetwynd being day houses (originally reflecting the side of Newport that a pupil was from) and School for boarders. Until 1988, Aston and Chetwynd pupils were in different classes, with the Chetwynd class being called, for example, Form 1 and the Aston one Form 1P (for 'parallel'). Members of School house were distributed equally between the two forms. In 1988, the pupils of each year were redistributed amongst three forms, labelled for example 2E, 2F and 2G, but still each assigned to their original house. In 1989, these forms became the new houses of Clive, Darwin and Talbot, with for example 2G becoming 3D. In 1994, a fourth new house, Webb, was added.

I do not have access to sources, but I was at the school when these changes occurred. The previous version is not sourced either.

Salopian (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That's inadequate, since you have left all the other unsourced material there. You are showing extreme bias by rejecting the material that I could not source but keeping that which was already there. And re: "cannot be bothered", that was a light-hearted comment, so calm down. Salopian (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. The comment Meters replied to at 00:20 has been deleted by Salopian, who also rethreaded this discussion. See this version for context. —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, only because I did not understand that he had moved my post due to the illogical ordering of talk pages and thus wrote it all out again. The content above is the content that he replied to.
 * He replied to your first comment, not your second. Also, please sign your posts. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)Please familiarize yourself with WP:TALK. Sign your posts, start new threads at the bottom,don't delete material that has been replied to, and don't reformat tthreads.,
 * Anyone who is interested can very easily see what you changed by going to the article history. There's no need to duplicate the material here. The diff of your second edit is (your first edit was substantially the same). I'm not showing any bias. I removed the  claims that you were objecting to, and,as I pointed out in my edit summary,  "You are free to challenge the existing content". Your saying: "That's inadequate, since you have left all the other unsourced material there"  is a bit much. I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what else you might object to. Would you prefer that I remove absolutely everything in the article that is not reliably sourced?  Meters (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original posting and my reply to it. Meters (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)