Talk:Oakham School

Untitled
Editors from Oakham School itself should be aware of the following Wikipedia Policies: Wikipedia:Not a Soapbox, Vanity_guidelines and Autobiography, and should temper their urge to write a prospectus. --Nema Fakei 03:14, 18 January 2006.

Equally, unless an editor feels a sentence is a misrepresentation, there's no need to tag innocuous statements as needing citations. E.g., is it really open to question that Dr. Joseph Spence replaced Tony Little?? Or that the school was founded in 1584? Or that a cricket club sometimes uses the grounds?

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation from the WP guidelines or MOS that supports that assertion?Crispness (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple:


 * [|Citing Sources]. In particular, that attribution is required for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". By extension, attribution is not required in other cases.


 * The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, Section 11.5.


 * I merely asked whether those facts were open to question. Because, if they are not, then they do not need citations. My concern was that, in an attempt to improve the article, citation tags were added that, in fact, would not have helped the editors, acting in good faith, to fix the problems, but rather misdirected them.


 * Questioning a fact that is so easily checked as Oakham's current headmaster is more akin to vandalism or bad faith than a bona fide request for information. I was able to find this reference in less than a minute -- I had no doubt what it would say: http://www.oakham.rutland.sch.uk/admissions/index.htm


 * Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for second opinion
Would someone acquainted with Oakham School please take a look at The Oakhamian Distinguished Gentlemens' English Royalist Society, which strikes me as suspicious. CarolGray 10:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Uppingham.png
The image File:Uppingham.png 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 Media copyright questions. --23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal Difficulties
As the current difficulties the school is having are a matter of public record, why should anyone feel strongly enough that they would blank this information? The case reference is 1901228/2008 at the Leicester Employment tribunal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramlink (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unknown, but as a guess, because I expect it is pending and in neither parties interests to have it displayed here? (It might be prejudicial yadda yadda.)
 * It also had, in my opinion, undue prominence in the article.
 * I have removed the comment about incorporation as I know it to be factually incorrect. (In-so-far as incorporation being instigated far in advance of the tribunal and also having no effect on the school's charitable status.) The rumour is that the technician was dismissed for incompetence and not for anything that was related to disablity. Do you know if this is correct?
 * (For Information: I do -not- work at Oakham School.)


 * I would support removing the section altogether on the grounds outlined at WP:INDISCRIMINATE - e.g. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". It is not surprising that an employer of 160 staff should occasionally run into legal problems related to employment issues, and we have been given nothing to suggest that either the case or the individual concerned is particularly notable. According to the Tribunals Service they handle 180,000 cases every year (a figure which astonished me, but that's what they say). Barnabypage (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed again for reason given above. It is simply not notable. Given the emotive language used by Tramlink, 'difficulties' and 'why should anyone feel strongly enough', I question if he has an affiliation with the case and is posting in an attempt to besmirch the school's name. The quick reversion of the edit made also furthers my suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.74.10 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this edit AGAIN, due to blatant vandalism by the unsigned userat 83.104.74.10. I have to ask whether their employer is aware of the amount of time they are wasting on Wikipedia during working hours. It is questionable as well whether the incorporation was because of the tribunal or not - it is an astonishing coincidence that the incorporation was timed exactly on the day of the Tribunal papres being served. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramlink (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What "blatant vandalism"? It was a straightforward removal of text with reasons given.
 * I wonder if anyone else who's watching this Talk page would like to pitch in on the question of whether the section should be included, so we can form some sort of consensus. Barnabypage (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am interested to know why this is right at the top of the page; it is hardly the most important of points relating to a school of over 160 staff, > a thousand pupils and 425 years of history.. Granted, its inclusion may be warranted, but its position is somewhat suspicious. Edit to add: is there any legal problem with the case being posted here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.195 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bursar
The issue with the former bursar is interesting. It's clear he has now left the school, but what's not clear is why - the school hasn't made a public statement about his leaving or about this case. However, he left his previous two roles after similar tenures, and I'm currently looking into whether similar ET proceedings were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.198.237 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means investigate what you wish, of course, but please be aware that even if you do find some pattern in this guy's employment history, the policies WP:NOR and WP:SYN would mean that Wikipedia is not the place to reveal it. Barnabypage (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oakham School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070817185430/http://www.oakham.rutland.sch.uk/admissions/fees.htm to http://www.oakham.rutland.sch.uk/admissions/fees.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Oakham 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/20080610055129/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/182-06 to http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/182-06

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)