Talk:Wills Hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is clearly biased (somone who knew nothing about bristol uni could see that). A major edit will occur in the next couple of weeks (Mikey 12:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

I gave it a quick once-over just now to take out the most enthusiastic language and various romantic meanderings. -Splash^talk 00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Retitled "allegations of classism" as it sounded biased (i.e. WE ARE INNOCENT!) to Wills and Classism

also removed a reference to the Observer being "left-leaning" as i thought this comment was biased and irrelevent to the subject matter, and was being used a a derogatory term. (Mikey 12:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Incorrect Sources

Although you quote the observer ("oldest, grandest and most expensive”) they are wrong, this article itself states that CHH was in existence before Wills and according to the 2005/2006 accommodation prospectus Wills costs the same as Badock for catered halls, and is only a few hundred pounds cheaper than some of the self-catered halls (winkworth house, for example).

Instead of starting an argument, I ask permission to change this comment, or for it to be changed. Wills is however, in my opinion, the grandest Hall in Bristol. (Mikey 15:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

You are indeed wholly right, and highlights some pretty sloppy work by the "Observer" in their highly rhetorical article. It is no wonder that people call the "Guardian" the "Grauniad"! Having written the section on CHH's existence as Wills was being founded, I was well-aware of the inaccuracy of "oldest". "Most expensive" is also an allegation that serial Wills-defenders must frequently rebut. Perhaps we could just leave "grandest"?! In our new spirit of benevolence, I'll take it out. Tim giddings 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left Leaning?

also removed a reference to the Observer being "left-leaning" as i thought this comment was biased and irrelevent to the subject matter, and was being used a a derogatory term. (Mikey 12:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Why is "left-leaning" irrelevant (and that's how 'irrelevant' is spelt) to a discussion of classism in British universities? Highlighting their "leftwards lean" surely only enables the reader to approach to the article in question with greater discernment. The higher education system, which has proved one of the key ideological battlegrounds between the left and right in Britain, is an issue where such information is of supreme relevance. I would imagine that a Wikipedean quoting from "The Field" in an article on fox-hunting would deign to inform the reader of possible ideological commitments which could colour the views expressed. I hope I haven't meandered too romantically in seeking to defend the "left leaning" epithet. If I have, I can only apologise. I shall await further comment before reinstating it. Tim giddings 14:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

fair enough, i have reinstated the comment, sorry i can't spell, not all of us had a decent private education (im a Hiatt baker lad!) ;) (Mikey 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Touché, Mikey! Looking forward to seeking the Hiatt Baker page (see below). Tim giddings 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hiatt Baker Hall Page is Protected but is only a redirect to the Entry for the UoB for some reson, i have requested an unlock (Mikey 17:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Hiatt Baker Hall Page unlocked please help in anyway you can (Mikey 15:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

On a point of order, the Wikiquette page reminds us that this resource is no place for partisan sententiousness. Even someone who knew nothing about Bristol University would suspect the president of the JCR at a rival hall such as Hiatt Baker of having possible mixed motives. I suppose Terentius was right: "veritas odium parit". Please approach your "major edit" of this page with the same respect as I would show to a page of Hiatt Baker, were it to exist. I shall try to welcome helpful edits with the credit they deserve. Tim giddings 15:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy and References

I have reinstated the information about UVW blocks being ensuite. I am not sure what problem someone could have with this information.

As a simple statement it is enormously irrelevant since this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or an alternative prospectus for the Hall. These kinds of articles tend to acquire an extraordinary degree of minutiae over time that really just clutters the article when the clean facts of the matter are more interesting. Remember that you're writing this for someone who wants an encyclopedic overview of Wills Hall, rather than someone who wishes to know how many bathrooms it contains! Included in a mention of needing to attract conference guests as a source of income it is much more relevant. But I see that many (nearly all) of the claims in the article have no sources to back them up. Although you and I know them to be true, the project demands a higher standard than that. So can you find a reference somewhere stating that halls of residence in British universities are doing this kind of thing? -Splash^talk 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Many universities have taken the opportunity to combine these extension programmes with an expansion of facilities available for conferences: new bedrooms have been built with en-suite bathrooms, furnishings have been made plusher and auditoria more spacious. Whilst all this makes studying more comfortable for the students, it also makes universities more attractive for conferences and availability is easier." Index Link 2 (Winter 2000) p.3 [www.indexcommunications.com/newsletters/IndexLinkIssue2.pdf]

"Better quality residential space can also assist the intensification of the use of teaching facilities by helping to attract conference summer school and even holiday business out of term time", ('University Challenge: Opportunities in the Student Residential Accomodation Market' in Research Notes 1 (2000) p.2, published for the UNITE Group).

Splash, thanks so much for your commitment to good editorial standards, particularly proper referencing. I'd be grateful for any other points in this article which you think would benefit from secondary sources. Tim giddings 16:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's great. In terms of proper referencing, well, each of the key facts in the article needs a citation. (They can be taken from the Hall's website if necessary, since it can be considered a reliable source for these purposes.) I think in particular the following:

1. The opening paragraph of the History section contains a number of facts that are interesting but possibly apocryphal: particulary the "grave moral risk" kind of thing.
2. The date of admission of women, and preferably some evidence of the opposition (this might be hard to find, I think).
3. The dining hall being "often likened to that in Harry Potter..." definitely needs a third-party citation. If this can't be backed, it needs to be removed (see WP:V for the difference between truth and verifiability).
4. Wills' Ball's major acts.
5. A simple ref to the Hall Association.

Some of these are easier than others, I think. Note that it is ok to say that "...the Hall claims..." if you can find such a claim and can find no third-party back-up for it for some of those items. Clearly, a date of admission to women needn't be couched as a claim, but some of the History section might need to be. -Splash^talk 17:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)