Talk:Victoria College, Jersey

WW2 memorial
The article describes it as a plaque, but this may give the wrong impression as it is made of granite and quite substantial. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Houses
Frank Falle mentioned to me on his history walks that all houses were named after recipients of the Victoria Cross. This is not so. Both the Register History 1852-1929, and Cottril's Victoria College both note that Braithewaite was NOT awared the Victoria Cross, but only mentioned in Despatches. Frank Falle checked and agreed that I was correct, but I suspect this false information is widespread.

Its a common misconception that all the houses are named after VC holders (Fdsdh1 (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC))


 * This is also the case with Julian Dunlop as he was also only mentioned in dispatches.
 * I seem to remember there are 2 Sartorius Brothers who were awarded the cross however there could be more. ThymeWillTell (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A.J. Dykes
An anonymous entry was made and removed regarding accusations of the scandal of A.J. Dykes in the 1990s. While the tone was polemic and angry, the latter is historical fact, and I have reworded and reinserted a paragraph regarding that with a source to the legal case, which details out the facts of the matter, and is public domain. As this occured over a seven year period, that is substantial to require a note. --TonyinJersey 06:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir Galahad
For your information, as an ex-pupil, please note that the statue of Sir Galahad is no longer outside the 6th form common room. The statue remains where it was, in the quadrangle, but the common room itself has been moved to the old Art Dept. building after the completion of the Joint Art, Design and Technology centre with Jersey College for Girls.

Regards,

AGS

Would you know the number / name of the room which was the common room, so this can be adjusted?

--TonyinJersey 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The old common room was redesigned to become the Learning Resource Centre: a room with a large number of computers in which students could work independently during break times or during free periods. It was also colloquially referred to as the Early Learning Centre as students left there unsupervised had a tendency to misbehave. The changes occurred over the Summer break in 2000 (just before I started in the 6th form). So to answer the question, the room is called the Learning Resource Centre. krebbe 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the Wiki text accordingly. I love the anecdote!

--TonyinJersey 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The WWII plaque is situated outside the new 6th form common room, so that part was correct. You can see the Statue of Sir Galahad from the windows of the Learning Resource Centre (the former 6th form common room), which look out over the quad, although I wouldn't say they were close enough to make it worth relating the location of the statue to the location of the Learning Resource Centre - why the article originally related the statue to the old 6th form common room (even when it was there) is a little bemusing. I fixed the article. Sorry for any confusion. krebbe 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The WW2 memorial has been moved from the 6th form common room to the bottom of the stairs leading upto the Great Hall (next to the staff room door)(Fdsdh1 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Pics
I took advantage of some rare Summer sun and an idle hour to take some pics and upload to Commons. I've also got Sir Galahad - I'll upload in due course. Man vyi 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

School Motto
I came across this by a Latin scholar:

Amat victoria curam means literally "Victory loves the care", that is "Victory likes careful preparation" or more loosely "Victory favours those who take pains", since victory falls to those who prepare it carefully. 

Does anyone have any record of the motto and its translation in any early school documents, so that the appropriate translation can be checked? When was the first time it was rendered in English?

--TonyinJersey (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Boaters
"In the summer, boater hat's are often worn to formal events."

Certainly this was NOT the case in the late 1960s, early 1970s. If it is a new tradition, when was it introduced? Or was it an old one which went out of fashion and came back?

--TonyinJersey (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Boaters have certainly been in use for the last seven years; but I am not sure when they were introduced. However, there are 1920's images of the college with student's and staff wearing boaters, so it may have been an old tradition reintroduced.

Jopageris (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out when. It might have been part of the change which saw the introduction of houses. I'll see if Ed Le Quesne remembers them in the 1980s.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Le Quesne (pupil and later head of Physics) told me:

Boaters were introduced by Ronnie Postill in the late 50's while I was at school. I never wore them, thought they looked silly.. I am not sure whether they were still being worn in 1973, when I came back to Jersey. May have been killed by Matrtyn Devenport.

Michael De La Haye (Greffier) told me:

I'm pretty sure it's quite recent, even in my sons time (both left 5 or 6 years ago) I don't think it wasn't done. I understand it was a Philip Le Brocq idea to revive them (I think they had them in his time) that Bob Cook must have agreed.

I'm adjusting the main text accordingly, as they definitely were not there in the "Devenport Years".

--TonyinJersey (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Victoria College, Jersey. 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/20090311064325/http://justice4survivors.org:80/sharp/The_Sharp_Report.htm to http://justice4survivors.org/sharp/The_Sharp_Report.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 15:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Victoria College, Jersey. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070927024033/http://www.jerseylegalinfo.je/Judgments/JerseyLawReports/Display.aspx?Cases/JLR1999/JLR990146.htm to http://www.jerseylegalinfo.je/Judgments/JerseyLawReports/Display.aspx?Cases/JLR1999/JLR990146.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits reverted
I cut some detail as non-encyclopedic, non-notable and overly detailed, but edits have been reverted. I don't want to edit war so commenting here so others are aware if they want to improve the article. Tacyarg (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Preamble
Having recently made a dent in rewriting and improving the state of this article, which had severe issues, an employee or associate of Victoria College has taken it upon themselves to regularly visit this page and reinstate the article to its original, poor, condition. To save me from repeatedly and individually explaining the issues with that version of the article (for example the most recent version left by that editor here), I thought it best to run through all the issues (which I have, to the best of my ability/knowledge, rectified) here.

I should add that, clearly, there may be inaccuracies or potential biases/undue weight given to certain areas as a result of the somewhat limited sources available for this article. But repeatedly reverting back to the original mess is not a way to improve it; if that editor has the sense to read this I hope they will outline the inaccuracies here and begin a discussion to improve any such issues instead of embarking on the destruction of any semblance of good encyclopedic practice every time they see fit.

The issues
The issues in the original article are as follows:

Lack of reliable sources and nearly entirely original research
 * The article is nearly completely devoid of reliable sources or inline citations to verify information.
 * The article appears to be written based almost entirely from original research (not permitted on Wikipedia).
 * The employee/associate of the school, despite it being explained on numerous occasions, is ignorant to the fact original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia. A painful example of this would be a more recent edit summary, in which they said that "[o]ver citing the ISI inspection is a clear indicator that this editor has no real knowledge of the school". The said ISI report is a neutral, well-written and reputable secondary source ideal for use on Wikipedia, yet the editor dismisses it and suggests only those with "real knowledge" of the school should make original contributions.

Blatant conflict of interest and disregard for Wikipedia guidelines
 * The employee/associate of the school's edit summaries such as "[r]e-Added information regarding the school uniform following further vandalism by ‘FormulaOneWiki’ who clearly has no association with the college" demonstrate that the aforementioned editor believes only those associated with the school should be able to add information and edit the article. This is in direct conflict with two key principles of Wikipedia: No original research and do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.
 * Edit summaries such as "[a]dded information regarding Honours Boards and Head Boys who are as notable as Headmasters and are traditionally recognised in this manner on Wikipedia. Further removal would demonstrate a significant lack of understanding of how the College recognises its members" also show a clear ignorance of actual Wikipedia policy; they appear to believe that what is commonplace at the school is somehow equivalent to Wikipedia policy itself. The editor shows a blatant misunderstanding of, and a total disregard for, the well-established editing guidelines on Wikipedia and the specific guidelines set out at WP:WPSCH/AG.

Copyright violations
 * There are also serious copyright issues and violations (see full copyvio report here). The school song is very unlikely to be copyright free, and there is no verification that it is in the public domain or has been released under the appropriate licence. Some sections are blatantly copied and pasted from other websites and sources, the most egregious being passages entirely lifted without citation (not that it would meet the standards for a reliable source anyway) from here such as but not limited to the following:





Non-neutral POV/censorship
 * The article often reads like an advertisement (see ad) for the school, and does not have a neutral POV. There is also evidence of censorship of content the school does not wish to be displayed. Attempts have been made on multiple occasions to suppress or remove entirely content describing the child abuse scandal in which staff at the school were implicated. The coverage of the scandal was one of the few parts of the original article which included citations to reliable sources (though I have since attempted to improve such sources and coverage) and most certainly should be included given the extensive media coverage both locally and in the UK. An example is this edit where the whole paragraph was removed with the edit summary "Removed scandal as school do not want it visible".

Non-compliance with WikiProject School guidelines
 * The inclusion of sections and information which feature in the list of 'What not to include' at WP:WPSCH/AG, including excessive lists (list of houses, house flags, competitions, head boys etc.), excessive detail about the uniform (not notable enough for inclusion), trivia including that about the houses, and lyrics of the school song (also covered above in copyright issues).
 * The names of a number of students and staff are included where they should not be. See the guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG which state that "[t]he names of current and former teachers should only be included if they are notable in their own right (for example, they are published authors or they have won a teaching award), or they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial press coverage" and "[s]pecific students should not be mentioned unless they are notable in their own right, such as Daniel Radcliffe who was famous while still in school"; a list of head boys clearly does not meet this requirement.
 * Again, the employee/associate of the school's edit summaries reveal they simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia guidelines, instead assuming that their/the school's view of 'importance' is gospel. For example, when I have added sections in accordance with WP:WPSCH/AG such as key sections concerning Governance, Admissions, Curriculum and Extracurricular activities, the editor has described it as "a large amount of erroneous and respectively irrelevant information". While clearly the guidelines have some flexibility, and differing articles require different structural needs, this disregard for the most basic structural guidelines is absurd.

I think that's everything. I hope the subheading I've left below can be the place where the employee/associate can actually discuss any errors or inaccuracies they see and that they can work with Wikipedia editors to fix those issues in the appropriate manner without inflicting the site to the mess of issues outlined above. —Formulaonewiki

Edit Warring

 * Special:Contributions/5.35.166.0/24
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039

, :

You're currently engaged in an edit war spanning 10 reverts, and quickly increasing. I'd recommend you stop reverting; WP:3RR was surpassed a long time ago. Spamming the undo button and typing your arguments in edit summaries is not a productive way to resolve your disagreement.

Please discuss your differences here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I bit. I shouldn't have, I got frustrated. I've tried appealing for them to take it here on a number of occassions. The IP user has now taken to vandalising by reinstated outdated versions of pages I've edited here (with the summary "Stick to Guernsey, Leave Jersey alone... you clearly know nothing!") and here. This is clearly disruptive. I have explained everything above but they have simply not read and continued to disruptively edit. Surely there needs to be some sort of IP block? —Formulaonewiki 15:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it isn't vandalism. It may become disruptive, but it seems like, so far, you two have made no attempt to try communicate this issue, other than through edit summaries. Evidently, you two have a difference of opinion. I can understand your frustration, but my suggestion would be to talk it out here. If that means 'the wrong' version staying up for a few days, so be it; it's not the end of the world.
 * I fail to see how the deliberate reversion purely to leave a remark on a different page (Elizabeth College) can be anything except vandalism? I agree the editing here is best described as disruptive. Like I said, I have tried at length to open discussion above and communicate, and have been met with nothing but blunt disagreement. —Formulaonewiki 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, I have left several talk page messages reaching out on the two IP addresses the other editor uses trying to open communication, again with no response. —Formulaonewiki 15:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, it's a bit early and I didn't fully grasp what was going on in the diff you linked. That's vandalism, yeah. And probably indicates a COI. What's going on here is disruptive, mainly if it persists without any attempt at discussion. I see the editing continuing from the IP without attempt to reach out here or on talk. At this point I'd suggest just chucking this over to the admins at WP:ANI. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! Apologies again for the edit warring; if nothing at least it drew your attention and you've given some sage advice. I do hope the IP editor can be constructive -- having someone with such apparent expertise to co-operate with would be valuable to guide improvements to this article. I'm off out in a minute but tomorrow when I get a chance I'll head over and seek admin help. Thanks. —Formulaonewiki 16:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally, you two can work out your differences yourselves. I wouldn't suggest going to the admins yet. I would suggest both parties read WP:DR. If you cannot reach an agreement here, there's dispute resolution methods available that don't involve admins. But let's not get ahead of ourselves - hopefully a resolution can be made just by discussing amongst yourselves here. If the other editor does not respond, then I'd suggest taking it to WP:ANI. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification
It has been brought to my attention by a frustrated friend that this page has been repeatedly edited beyond recognition as it'd seem information included in the original article has lost a number of references over the years of this page being overly edited and vandalised. Changes in the school website including a removal of historical information from the site as the school looks to modernise has also resulted in a loss of active citations. Now that we are are aware of this we will attempt to restore and add additional citations where possible over the next few months so such will not need removing again. (although most are from publications not online - such as 'The Devenport Years - Steven Lucas) There is no COI here just a few 'local buffs' that have maintained this pages' integrity for a number years. We aren't Wikipedia experts but we understand that the article needs improving, but maintain this version is in a much better position for such to be executed than the recently created alternative version from a Guernsey editor, that was biased towards one three day ISI report and a limited shared history with Elizabeth College. NB: A number of accusations made have been false. For example, there is no active censorship or sentimentalisation - an example of such is the still clear direction to the definitive Sharp Report, without the previously excessive commentary. The schools history and activities in the community make the information included of interest to a wider community & beyond it's own and the article has always represented this. The prominence of the building as a landmark means it often visited by locals and tourists so information detailing it's history: be them flags, gargoyles or simply it role housing occupying forces during WWII are relevant beyond that of an ordinary school site and thus some of which understandably falls outside of the scope of a school article. Not mentioned as yet for an additional example - is the active role the CCF plays in State occasions, very few other school CCFs have such regular roles in the UK, and therefore it could be argued such should be included also to inform those looking for such information. Finally this article should be a collection of information sourced from different contributors and sources, not an entire article written with little knowledge of subject matter citing limited erroneous sources over zealously. Hopefully updates/changes made in the next couple of months will satisfy the technical concerns raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.166.178 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * A response to each of the above points, in turn:


 * 1) It is not true that "information included in the original article has lost a number of references". Any information which referenced reliable sources has been preserved and/or incorporated into subsequent edits.
 * 2) The article should not be entirely reliant on the school website (a primary source) as a source for historical information. Such information should instead be supported by reliable, verifiable secondary sources, which have been provided by recent edits.
 * 3) If you 'restore' or add additional citations, they must be reliable. Here are some examples. Publications not online are fine, but like any other source, they must meet Wikipedia standards.
 * 4) It has already been demonstrated in this discussion that there have been blatant examples of COI from Wikipedia editors from the IP block within which you edit from.
 * 5) The ISI report is a perfect example of a reliable, verifiable, neutral third-party source. Of course, a good article on Wikipedia should reference a wide range of sources where possible, but you (nor anyone else) have provided any other sources of a similar standard.
 * 6) Where I live is not relevant.
 * 7) Censorship of the article is clearly evidenced in this discussion as previously referenced, in particular the edits: (i) "Removed scandal as school do not want it visible "; and (ii) "Final update and restoration of items removed without the permission of the College ".
 * 8) I refer you to an abridged version of my previous response given in the aforementioned discussion: Nobody is saying content beyond the guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG (such as traditions, uniform etc.) cannot be included, only that inclusion of any information must be supported with reliable, third-party sources. In the case of traditions and uniform etc., which would not normally be notable enough to warrant inclusion per the guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG, there must be some explanation as to why they are notable, again with support from reliable, third-party sources. In the example you have given, Eton College, the tradition and uniform sections have such sources and the notability is explained. Again, nobody was solely focusing on certain matches, just an accurate summary was given based on the sources available. If you believe all this information is notable and worthy of inclusion, then WP:PROVEIT.
 * 9) You and any other editors are welcome to edit and collaborate. That will never be contested by me.
 * Regards, —Ave (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

VCP year founded?
The article currently says the prep school was established in 1966, but Jersey Heritage has images going back to at least 1947, and in October 2022 there was a tweet celebrating the school's 100th anniversary, so presumably it was founded in 1922? It seems the school was first based at Mount Pleasant House, but moved to its current location in 1966, hence the confusion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)