Talk:Wills Hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Bristol
Bristol Portal
The article on Wills Hall is supported by the Bristol WikiProject, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Photo At least one photograph is included in this article
Map This article has a map
Infobox This article has an infobox
Stats This article needs statistical information to be added
Wills Hall appeared on portal:Bristol as Bristol Selected Article for October, 2007.

You can vote for the next selected articles at WikiProject Bristol.

Contents

[edit] Reference to Christian Union

As a current Wills resident, I believe that it is unnecessary to have a reference in the opening paragraph of this page to the Christian Union.

The C.U. plays a very minor part in hall life and the vast majority of residents would disassociate themselves with a movement that holds bigoted viewpoints towards homosexuals and those of other faiths, many of whom are Hall residents. Indeed, there has been mounting controversy within the university regarding the practices of the C.U. (see article published December 2006 - http://www.epigram.org.uk/view.php?id=1205 ) and many believe it should be restrained.

WHFM

Agreed, i watch this page alot, as an ex hall pres (bunker) i feel it is my duty to keep an eye on this page, good call Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Now lets not be silly. I agree that the Hall Fell/C.U. plays a very minor part in hall life but that's absolutely no reason to start Christian-bashing. Certainly remove it from the article for the first reason you state but surely if there's 'mounting constroversy' then that would add to the reasons to include it in the article? The article is not supposed to be an advert for Wills Hall but an overview of it, which means including activities that take place in hall even if they are 'bigoted'. DAylen 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it correct that the Hall C.U. "plays a very minor part in hall life"? According to one of its current leaders (Will Corrie) it has 27 members, which makes it one of the largest groups in hall (correct me if I'm wrong!). In addition, three second years are in hall expressly to co-ordinate the group, which I think merits its mention in the paragraph on students in hall: The majority of these students are in their first year of study, but a number of students from other years stay on to contribute to hall life through the Junior Common Room or groups such as the hall Christian Union.
Remember that bigotry/intolerance is about actions, not beliefs. I may personally believe that my Muslim friend is wrong that Mohammed wrote definitive truth on life, I may articulate my reasons why in a discussion with him, but as long as I don't attack him or refuse to employ him, I'm not being intolerant. We call this free speech: the right to disagree but not to discriminate.
The Epigram article quoted above was not the only article in that month's edition. See the main article at [1]. This investigative article seems (to me) more broadly respresentative of the wider discussion about the C.U., as opposed to an anonymous opinion piece.
Finally, if it is decided to replace reference to the C.U. with reference to W.H.A.T.S., note that the T stands for "Theatrical", not "Dramatic".Tim giddings 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say either the C.U. or W.H.A.T.S. plays a sufficiently prominent role in Hall life to warrent a mention in the opening paragraph. Perhaps a separate section for hall groups is needed? DAylen 13:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps a separate section on hall groups might be a good idea. Evidence from ticket sales and the list of people involved in W.H.A.T.S. productions indicates that about 30% of residents participate in their productions and up to 60% of the residents will attend a production. 82.0.168.44 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Biased

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. -Splashtalk 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))

Removed a sentence saying that "most" people find Wills students "arrogant" due to POV (statement of an opinion, not the opinion, but nonetheless I think POV) and unverifiable (unless someone has done a survey?) Fish-Face (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (Goldneyite)

[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? -Splashtalk 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. -Splashtalk 17:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfounded Claims?

Other Halls are equally, if not more, public school orientated; Chrurchill, Hiatt Baker and Goldney, for example.

i think this is a bit weasely to be honest, most people in UoB would not agree with this statement, especially in reference to Hiatt Baker. Unless proof can be found, i think this should be removed

Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia, not diary

I'm concerned that lists of what acts appeared at the ball, what productions were given this year etc. are diary entries akin to nostalgia rather than encyclopedic information collection. So I've removed them. There is a general desire to avoid statements that date quickly similarly; this is usually because they are of no long-term relevance to the article. I've also removed the current Warden as a result: the guy is great, I'm sure, but lacking an article of his own, there's little reason to document which relatively-minor academic is running the place for these few years. Splash - tk 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the removal of the Warden's name. Whilst he might not be a top flight academic, he is one of the longest serving Wardens of Wills and indeed of any hall. If it is decided that the Wardens should not be mentioned, you should remove all wardens from all Hall wikis (as almost of them name the current warden). Refering to different university accomodation pages, the name of the Warden/Rector/Dean/Master is listed. There should be consistancy between hall pages with respect to Balls. Performers are listed at other Hall pages c.f the Hiatt Baker page. .--82.0.168.44 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)