Talk:Diocesan College

Welcome - Assessment

We need a SA school with a great article. This is well on the way. Refs are started but we need 10 or 20 more. Who says Mark Shuttleworth went to this school? Need a 3rd party ref. Some more pics would be good Victuallers 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC) more coming ...

I think there should be more about the fact that Bishops is not a very nice place for people who are not good at sports, do not conform to soceital norms. It has been harshly criticised as having a bigger bullying problem than other schools, and denying it. --Taejo 13:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(sorry if this is submited incorrectly - I am responding)

Um - I go to Bishops and can say that although sport is compulsory there is a wide variety of sports to choose from. People are only critisised when they duck out/don't do sports.

bigger bullying problem than other schools, and denying it. --Taejo 13:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(sorry if this is submited incorrectly - I am responding)

Um - I go to Bishops and can say that although sport is compulsory there is a wide variety of sports to choose from. People are only critisised when they duck out/don't do sports.

If you want to add in a bit voicing these criticisms, you'll have to do so in a balanced and fair manner. Most particularly, you will need to include at least one source, such as a newspaper article criticising Diocesan college for being too focused on sports/having a bullying problem. ManicParroT 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

'natives' and 'Europeans'

The article states that Bishop Gray "...founded two schools there – one for native's children and one for sons of the Europeans." The terms 'native' and 'European' are now generally regarded as being inappropriate. The current usages (from the Employment Equity Act) are white, African, Coloured, Indian and black. 'Black' is a generic term for Africans, Coloureds and Indians. I propose that the sentence be altered to read: "...founded two schools there – one for black children and one for white children." [posted, unsigned, on 2 June 2006, or thereabouts, by Adambrink]

If I remember correctly this is how the two schools were referred to in one of the school history books - also by saying black children some people may be confused - the second school was for those who were native to South African (well as far as I can tell - I will try and find out more on this school) --kilps 21:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather leave alone - as per Kilps above and due to the fact that at the time, those where the initial specifications. -- Chris Lester talk 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[I posted a response to this earlier, but it has disappeared - probably my mistake!] As I understand it your arguments are as follows: (1) that's how the school history book puts it, so that's how it should be described now; or, perhaps (2) that's how it was described in 1849, so that's how it should be described now. Against this must be weighed considerations of : (1) appropriateness; (2) lack of clarity; and (3) the need to use current language and avoid archaisms: (1) the use of the word native is generally regarded as an offensive throw-back to the 40s and 50s (when the first school history was written, if you are referring to the 1949 centenary edition) and is not used self-referentially by black people in this country except ironically (as in the 'Natives Club' currently in the news, and as in this quote of Vuyani Ngalwana (OD) "There is nothing derogatory in the term nigger in the South African context in my view -- I can't speak for the black Americans as there may be a nasty history in the usage of the term in America, as there is a nasty history in the usage of the term 'native' or 'bantu' in South Africa." Pension Funds Adjudicator Vuyani Ngalwana on the cover line "The nigger who caused all the trouble" next to his picture on the cover of the Financial Mail.). Significant numbers of white South Africans also reject the term European as they are not European, but South African. (2) The terms are unclear, especially to people from other countries. Do they really seek to distinguish between those born on this continent and those born on the continent of Europe? Of course not - the reference is to skin colour. (3) Current South African usage is generally as set out in the EEA, as described in my original post. The usage in the article, on the other hand, is either 60 or 160 years out of date. I would suggest that if the reference to 'native' and 'European' is meant to give a flavour of the time then this must be clarified either by placing the words in quotes to suggest that the words are used ironically, or the source of the words must be spelled out. I would then suggest this: "...founded two schools there, separated by race and described at the time as being "for native's children" and for "the sons of the Europeans" respectively" or "...founded two schools there, separated by race and described in the School's 1949 history as being "for native's children" and for "the sons of the Europeans" respectively" - depending on the outcome of Kilp's hunt for the authority for the initial statement. It is important that it is said that there were originally two schools, and I was surprised to read it - a very South African tale... If you wish to clarify later that Bishops had, by some or other date, started admitting pupils of all races, I would applaud that. --Adambrink 10:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term Native and European shows the distinction between that and Black and White. At the time of the founding of the school, the two 'groups' were separated not only by race, but many other factors. Bishops does now admit students of all races, and that other school is no longer in existance.

If you like, I propose changing the sentence in question to read, "...founded two schools there, one of which was described as for the Native children and the other for European Children." What are your thoughts? -- Chris Lester ^talk 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This site gives an interesting insight into the other school: [1]. According to that site, it was then actually called a 'Kaffir College'. Your proposal is an advance on that, I suppose, so I accept it! :-) (Subject to your de-capitalising the second children.) --Adam Brink 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Offensive comment

What a bunch of poeste. ha ha bishops was ruined by you stinking nerds. I'll bet your mommies still wipe your bums. I am publicly deleting this primitive comment. Swissjames 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

'natives' and 'Europeans'

The article states that Bishop Gray "...founded two schools there – one for native's children and one for sons of the Europeans." The terms 'native' and 'European' are now generally regarded as being inappropriate. The current usages (from the Employment Equity Act) are white, African, Coloured, Indian and black. 'Black' is a generic term for Africans, Coloureds and Indians. I propose that the sentence be altered to read: "...founded two schools there – one for black children and one for white children." [posted, unsigned, on 2 June 2006, or thereabouts, by Adambrink]

If I remember correctly this is how the two schools were referred to in one of the school history books - also by saying black children some people may be confused - the second school was for those who were native to South African (well as far as I can tell - I will try and find out more on this school) --kilps 21:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather leave alone - as per Kilps above and due to the fact that at the time, those where the initial specifications. -- Chris Lester talk 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[I posted a response to this earlier, but it has disappeared - probably my mistake!] As I understand it your arguments are as follows: (1) that's how the school history book puts it, so that's how it should be described now; or, perhaps (2) that's how it was described in 1849, so that's how it should be described now. Against this must be weighed considerations of : (1) appropriateness; (2) lack of clarity; and (3) the need to use current language and avoid archaisms: (1) the use of the word native is generally regarded as an offensive throw-back to the 40s and 50s (when the first school history was written, if you are referring to the 1949 centenary edition) and is not used self-referentially by black people in this country except ironically (as in the 'Natives Club' currently in the news, and as in this quote of Vuyani Ngalwana (OD) "There is nothing derogatory in the term nigger in the South African context in my view -- I can't speak for the black Americans as there may be a nasty history in the usage of the term in America, as there is a nasty history in the usage of the term 'native' or 'bantu' in South Africa." Pension Funds Adjudicator Vuyani Ngalwana on the cover line "The nigger who caused all the trouble" next to his picture on the cover of the Financial Mail.). Significant numbers of white South Africans also reject the term European as they are not European, but South African. (2) The terms are unclear, especially to people from other countries. Do they really seek to distinguish between those born on this continent and those born on the continent of Europe? Of course not - the reference is to skin colour. (3) Current South African usage is generally as set out in the EEA, as described in my original post. The usage in the article, on the other hand, is either 60 or 160 years out of date. I would suggest that if the reference to 'native' and 'European' is meant to give a flavour of the time then this must be clarified either by placing the words in quotes to suggest that the words are used ironically, or the source of the words must be spelled out. I would then suggest this: "...founded two schools there, separated by race and described at the time as being "for native's children" and for "the sons of the Europeans" respectively" or "...founded two schools there, separated by race and described in the School's 1949 history as being "for native's children" and for "the sons of the Europeans" respectively" - depending on the outcome of Kilp's hunt for the authority for the initial statement. It is important that it is said that there were originally two schools, and I was surprised to read it - a very South African tale... If you wish to clarify later that Bishops had, by some or other date, started admitting pupils of all races, I would applaud that. --Adambrink 10:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term Native and European shows the distinction between that and Black and White. At the time of the founding of the school, the two 'groups' were separated not only by race, but many other factors. Bishops does now admit students of all races, and that other school is no longer in existance.

If you like, I propose changing the sentence in question to read, "...founded two schools there, one of which was described as for the Native children and the other for European Children." What are your thoughts? -- Chris Lester ^talk 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This site gives an interesting insight into the other school: [2]. According to that site, it was then actually called a 'Kaffir College'. Your proposal is an advance on that, I suppose, so I accept it! :-) (Subject to your de-capitalising the second children.) --Adam Brink 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

Personally I have no problem with it, although I think it is a good idea for me to mention that as far as I know the school no refers to itself as Bishops with Diocesan College attached (as can be seen at [3] in the header image).

Now I have no idea were the school stands legally, but I think that considering that the school is formally refered to as Diocesan College (even though this name is only attached) the name of this article should stay the same.

Once I get back to school I shall do some enquiring though to fund out some more - --kilps 19:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union vs Rugby

Given that rugby is only played in the union form in South Africa at schools level, isn't it appropriate to call the sport simply rugby and maybe at the first mention rugby union. That will make the article far easier to understand. Any objections??-- Chris Lester ^talk 10:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In South Africa 'rugby' almost always means 'rugby union' but this not universal usage. In the North of England 'rugby' often means 'rugby league'. I don't object to people using 'rugby' as long as it is made clear which sport is being referred to.GordyB 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Colours

The last paragraph in the colours section is not fact but speculation and should be removed. You cant say that the school cares more about culture than sport in an encyclopedia. And this chris lester fellow, i doubt you sit in on the meetings of the PA or the council (as I do) so you better watch what you say.

Response

Calm down - please treat me with respect (see WP:NPA if you are confused - calling me a fellow is indicative of this). Take the following into account:

• I did not actually add this section in the first place! I merely reverted some edits, because they were controversial and should be discussed here first (note the burden of proof falls on the editor to show that something must be deleted. That can only occur as a last resort - if it can be reworked, that must be done.)
• It does not say that culture is less important than sport. This proposed plan raises questions about how important culture is for Bishops, and it has been argued that by doing the above there will then be three jerseys for each of the three tiers of school life at Bishops - this is supposed to show that all three areas are just as important, yet many arguing for equality emphasize that by keeping the white jersey for sport, the school is emphasizing a greater standing. It shows both sides of the coin.
• This is a proposal under debate in the SRF - this part is not speculation! Note that the PA, council is seperate from the SRF. I am not a member of any of these three committees, but please explain the relevance of that. Don't think because you are on the council that you are the authority to all that Bishops says.

The bottom line is that I have not claimed culture to be less important than sport. You cannot just delete information; it is far better to rework it.

So the solution: I will try to rework the information when I have time, noting that it is not speculating about the proposal; secondly that the issue of importance of the various spheres of school life has come under debate and thirdly that a balanced view is shown. Those arguments are real.

From a personal side, please

• Sign your comments
• Create an account to make editing easier.

Look at the facts. Be realistic. This is not an advertising agent. I did not make those claims, and neither does the article (questions have been raised this shows that the plan has been critised, not what you speculate to be inferiority). It may be true that the section can do with improvement, but that does not mean deletion.

Resorting to personal attacks on me is pointless. The article must provide a view as to what it actually happening. Thanks. -- Chris Lester ^talk 17:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My responce: with regards to the section in question - I would say rather that "many students argue though that ..." and as above - the personal attack is unessisary - Chris has done more admin on this page than most others have contributed --kilps 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

5th oldest school in Africa

Nonsense! Possibly "5th oldest formal European-style school with paid teachers in sub-Saharan Africa". But, even then I doubt it: What about Angola and Mozambique? For centuries and centuries formal "schools" have existed in Northern Africa. And not only arabic/islamic. What about French schools in Algeria? When did they start? And what is a European-style school, anyway? Are we saying that warfare was not _taught_ by the Zulus? I think "5th oldest school using chalk and blackboard in what is now South Africa" might be sustainable. No! What about settler children? Were they not taught in this way? No. It's a dubious claim in its current form. Paul Beardsell 08:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bishops is the fifth oldest formal school by year of establishment on record, after SACS (1829), College of West Africa in Liberia (1833), Sierra Leone Grammar School (1845) and St. George's Grammar School (1848). - Raker 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Formal" and "on record" included in the article. But where do I find this "record"? Paul Beardsell 10:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

All you have establised is that there are at _least_ 4 older schools. If another can be found then Bishop's is the sixth oldest. Not so? So: Are you sure there is not another? And what do you mean by "formal school"? A definition is required. I have added "formal" to the article pending its definition. Paul Beardsell 10:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there were schools in Egypt: Where did you learn to write in Ancient Egypt? And later invaders had children: Aegyptus (Roman province) Were there not religious schools (Christian and Islamic) in North Africa centuries ago? What about in Zanzibar? Paul Beardsell 10:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether any of those ancient schools still exist. The measure Raker introduced is not that of the "earliest" schools (for which schools in ancient Egypt and elsewhere would qualify), but rather of the oldest schools. The meanings are quite dissimilar: For example when we speak of the earliest people, we're talking about the originators of our species; but when we talk about the oldest people on earth we're referring only to those who are still alive. Thus Raker's comment is entirely plausible, as while there were certainly earlier schools than Bishops (or SACS for that matter), those five schools listed are the oldest known schools to still be operating today. — Impi 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There are, I guess, mosques in North Africa that have existed for well over 200 years. I speculate that there are religious schools associated with these. And that therefore they will have existed for over 200 years and still exist. Given that reasonable speculation it is fair to doubt "5th oldest on record" without seeing the record. Now, I am not making any claim in the article. The onus is on those doing so to provide a citation if challenged. Paul Beardsell 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. But I do not consider it authoritative. (1) It's just a web site. Who colated this information? (2) It only mentions sub-Saharan countries. No North African country is mentioned anywhere on the site. Another reference, please. Paul Beardsell 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one dubious about the list collator: From the web site of one of the listed schools: "Africa Almanac has ranked Rift Valley Academy as the second best school in Africa. I believe it was done a couple of years back, but it's still fun to have a pat on the back from some unknown entity." There you go: Africa Academy is "some unknown entity". Paul Beardsell 10:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Culture at Diocesan College

The Current Culture Section is Very lacking esspecially failure to mention the highly succesful theater. The Scale of the libary and its collection of africana and the antartic collection could possibly also be worked in. 41.241.64.34 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is necessary. Most of the salient points in the "Culture" article can be merged in the main Bishops article. The table showing teachers in charge of different clubs, houses that have won, etc. should be done away with. I've never come across another school with its own Culture article. - Raker 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I should not have created the thing in the first place. Will need a while to edit in prose, and to supplement the rest of the article. That table should be removed immediately -- it is not relevant in a broader encyclopedia. Let's just double-check to ensure that everyone is happy. -- Chris Lester ^talk 07:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merger but not with the doing away of the table. It's easy to read and saves people from going from society to society to see which teacher is in charge. Remember foreigners know about Bishops and some will be inclined to go to Wikipedia. - Pure Oxygen 18:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC) 18:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove the table without doubt -- this is not an internal school resource; rather it is for the general population. 99% of people couldn't care less about a teacher who runs a club for two dozen schoolboys. There is a limit to how much information you want to provide - and I'll say this, whilst those who added it acted in good faith, is a step too far. -- Chris Lester ^talk 23:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with St. Cyprian's School

Could someone please add something to the article regarding Bishops' relationship with [[4]] - my understanding as because Bishop Robert Gray founded both schools they are brother and sister schools - but I am not sure of how it works. --kilps 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at the latest school magazine you'll see that an advert displays the school in such a relationship. That's how it works - not a statistical argument. -- Chris Lester ^talk 14:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Three Pillar Plan & 2010

Should the Three Pillar Plan be included in this article...it is a plan to increase the rugby skill level at Bishops? I've got a lot of information on it --- my brother got a magazine all about it through his OD Membership

Also Mr. Nupen's 2010 plan - to make the school 40% black by attracting more fee-paying non-white parents by 2010. Should this be added under 'Diversity' or under the paragraph dealing with the LEAP school

Your thoughts would be appreciated -- Pure_Oxygen

It should be included. It's all very relevant to the challenges that the school faces today - and very much part of present policies. That 40% black statistic needs a source (which I'm sure you have), but this should be added under diversity, because it is Bishops that is being diversified, not the LEAP school... It seems like you have a great resource -- maybe I'll hang on for a bit to give you chance to edit the page...if that's fine with you? -- Chris Lester ^talk 14:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some big changes and a wishlist

I have made some big changes to the page [5]. This takes into account plans for a massive expansion of the article. It will, in the long-run, make the article more relevant to an encyclopedia. Please do revert some of my changes, as they may be controversial. I'll refine most later.

Moved list to to-do box -- Chris Lester ^talk 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) -- Chris Lester ^talk 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term matric

Being a matric is generally associated with the term matriculation. If you see Matriculation, one would see that there are many possible meanings for the term, and that terming grade 12 students as matrics is generally a South African thing. Ultimately people from over the world will read this, so I would hold that we should rather use grade 12 and logically what is post-matric should be grade 13. This will avoid confusion. Please revert me if there is an issue. -- Chris Lester ^talk 10:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

While you provide good arguments, you must remember that by using the word 'Grade', you're linking Grade 12 & 13 - which is certainly not the case. Grade 13 students do A-Level examinations, which is part of the British Education system while Grade 12 exams are done by the WCED. --Pure Oxygen 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that since post matric and not grade 13 is the term used both officially by Bishops, and generally in South Africa, that the former be used in the article, with a brief explanation in parentheses to explain it as an optional year following grade 12 for the benefit of those not familiar with the term.

Interestingly, I believe the term matric was used for grade 12 in Britain before the present GCE system was introduced when they had a secondary education system to similar South Africa's. (Thus ante matric for grade 11 and post matric.) - Raker 14:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's add a full explanation at the first instance of the term, and then use post-matric throughout. It, however, must be clear for anyone else (especially an outsider) that this is the case. -- Chris Lester ^talk 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Third level headers

While these have been changed I feel that they were alright as they were and made for better reading with their formatting. Comments anyone? --kilps 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a question of personal choice. Look at the Transport section of the Cape Town article, and you will find the bold (i.e. not level 3 headers). It sometimes does become too much in the table of contents. If you prefer...feel welcome to revert - but do consider the table of contents (i.e. a link to "ties" may be a bit trivial, when compared with "Culture". -- Chris Lester ^talk 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2003 bishopslogoCOL.gif

Image:2003 bishopslogoCOL.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between different alumini

I find it worrying that there is a distinction between sporting ODs and other ODs in the article. They should all have equal weighting in the article and if there was to be a distinction between the two, it would arguably be the business ODs who have contributed a greater amount to the world. Pure Oxygen 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's again pretty typical that the OD's are categorised into a general section (mostly "business" types) and then just various sports. There are surely many, many OD's who have excelled at the Arts and academically - why is this aspect so totally under-represented? (It is very reminiscent of the emphasis of the place as a whole when I was there in the late '80s - early '90s.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.156.241 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Overlap in the article

Under the sub-header of Ties, the article says the following: ...'College Prefects have their own tie, as do all members of the vote-in societies (Forum and Ten-Club)'.... However under the main heading of Culture it states exactly the same thing:

'Most societies are open to all boys at the college; however, the Ten-Club is by invitation only and which is comprised of the top 5 academic scholars in Grade 11 and 5 scholars who are voted in by the outgoing Ten Club. The Forum Society is also by invitation only and invites high-profile speakers, who deal with current and stimulating topics.'

How do you suggest we change it? I know it is over-lapping but under the Culture main heading, the Ten Club and Forum are expanded on. In other words, it explains how these societies operate, rather than simply saying they are "invitation only". Pure Oxygen (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please organise list of alumni

Who out there is prepared to organise the list of alumni using some clear logic, such as alphabetically by surname, or chronologically by birth date, or whatever? Zingi (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Pure Oxygen (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Old Diocesans

The page states under rugby that Roddy Grant went to Bishops. I am 100% certain that he did not finish matric there because he went to Hilton College. I am not sure what school he went to for grade 8 it could be hilton. In South Africa a student can only be attributed to a school if they finish matric there so it does not matter what school he went to for grade 8.

Are there any objection to me removing him from this list and putting him on the Hilton College listScubasteve55 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He could have gone to Bishops Prep, and would thus still be affiliated with Bishops as a whole, but not necessarily the College specifically. However, it is true that he cannot then be an OD.

MlpDarth (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Sport

In my opinion, most of the sections of this article are under-documented, but especially lacking is the sports section.

The impression I get from the current state of the section is that the only sports that are worth mentioning at Bishops are rugby and hockey, which is of course untrue.

Also, I firmly believe that each sport, if we are to go into the level of achievements and detail currently describing hockey, should have its own page to facilitate this.

I have made edits listing all the sports currently offered, as well as past sports that are no longer active at the school, separating them into summer and winter sports, as this is how the distinctions are made at the school. I propose the creation of an article for every sport that the community might wish to document in greater detail, keeping such time-specific detail out of this main article, where the sports section should be purely for a general overview of the whole of sport at Bishops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MlpDarth (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Eisteddfod

I firmly believe the Eisteddfod deserves its own article as it is such a prominent part of the school's calendar. In that way, it will be possible to mention specific statistics like who won &c.

The Eisteddfod section, I'm thinking l3 heading, in the main article should be a general overview of the Eisteddfod at Bishops, its history, what kind of events it contains, what the vibe is amongst the students &c. This would be a lot more informative for anyone not wishing to be dragged into inter-house statistics. MlpDarth (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Promotional/Unsourced info

This article has the potential to get a higher assessment. Sources are needed everywhere. A promotional tone has been used throughout parts of the article, especially "sport" and "culture". How Bishops' hockey team went "from strength to strength" and how they have "two fine orchestras" are unencyclopedic and are promotional. Hopefully these errors can be repaired. Nathan121212 (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Link rot

Almost all of the links are dead. Please archive the remaining ones to avoid further loss. Nathan121212 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Alumni/Old Boys

User:Simpythegimpy removed Chris Cape from the list of old boys, I have seen no proof that Chris Cape is an old boy other than the assertion made in the Chris Cape. But the same could be said for Judge Hilary Squires, no evidence has been presented that Squires is an old boy, so should we remove him from the list of alumni? Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed Chris Cape from the list more on the basis that he's not notable than whether or not I had proof that he attended the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpythegimpy (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse Scandal

The second paragraph of the sexual abuse scandals section has too many weasel words and no reliable sources: my feeling is that unless we can find better sources to substantiate the story, this paragraph should be removed. The two references in this paragraph are a Noseweek article and the minutes of an old boys' meeting, Noseweek is not a reliable source and the old boys' minutes are not independent. I invite comments and discussion. Wayne Jayes (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I agree that Noseweek is not a reliable source. It is a magazine that has scooped some of the biggest stories in SA and definitely has a lot of credibility in news circles in SA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpythegimpy (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

January edit

Is the last edit acceptable? Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You obviously think is is probably not acceptable, can you please say why you think the edit is not accptable? I can't see why you are objecting Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm only asking.

The editor did nasty edits of other articles.Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was probably not the same editor - that IP address is a "confirmed proxy server" which could be being used by hundreds, if not thousands, of different people.
That said, that addition, in fact the entire table, is unsourced; so I have tagged it - Arjayay (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

It seems as though the Controversies section of this page has been subject to repeated acts of vandalism removing it from the article without good reason. I encourage other editors to keep on eye on it to revert such vandalism.--Discott (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not that I think the section should be vandalized, but it's extremely questionable that the things talked about in are "controversies" about the school in the first place. Plus, they are mostly extremely trivial. For instance the thing about a student getting viral meningitis. There's no evidence from the single source available that he even got it at the school or that it had anything to do with them even if he did. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)